Google Answers Logo
View Question
Q: Political Issues ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   0 Comments )
Subject: Political Issues
Category: Relationships and Society > Politics
Asked by: fc225-ga
List Price: $5.00
Posted: 08 Dec 2003 17:30 PST
Expires: 07 Jan 2004 17:30 PST
Question ID: 285103
What do absolute free speech, balanced free speech, and the preferred
position refer to? In your opinion, which one do you support??
Subject: Re: Political Issues
Answered By: mvguy-ga on 09 Dec 2003 18:09 PST
Rated:5 out of 5 stars

You can find an excellent explanation of the three theories (and
others) on this page:

First Amendment Principles and Approaches: Part II

Based on my own knowledge as someone with a B.A. in political science
as well as the above document, here is what the three positions are:

Absolute free speech: Just what the name implies. Free speech is an
absolute right, not merely the most important right.  When the U.S.
Constitution says that Congress shall enact "no law" against free
speech, that means "no law." Under this theory, anything goes:
pornography, slander, libel, invasion of privacy, incitement to commit
crime, talking to members of a jury during a break in a trial, and so

Balanced free speech: In this approach, the desirability of free
speech is judged against other needs of society. Under this approach,
it might be OK to outlaw pornography, for example, because doing so
upholds morality and prevents exploitation. It might be also be OK
under this theory to make it illegal to criticize the President at a
time of war because it would embolden our enemies.  With this
approach, free speech is far from absolute, and it is no more or less
important than other values.

Preferred position: This is the position that is most often used to
decide court cases in the United States. Free speech is seen as an
important, even vital, right but not the only right. Where there are
other rights involved, it is presumed that free speech will rule
unless curtailing free speech is the only way to prevent some sort of
grievous harm or abridgment of other rights.  Under this kind of
reasoning, as an example, it makes more sense to lock up jurors during
a trial than to prevent public commentary on the trial. Or we would
allow almost any type of political speech as long as that speech
doesn't directly urge commission of a crime.

In my opinion, the preferred view makes the most sense. The absolutist
position leads to absurd results, and the "balanced" view means there
really isn't much free speech at all. The "preferred" view rightfully
recognizes that free speech is essential to having a free society.


Here are some other pages with information relevant to your question.

First Amendment
Links go to a wealth of comments on what freedom of speech (and other
First Amendment provisions) means.

Freedom of Expression Topics
Many essays on the topic.

Door No. 1: Muskets? Or Door No. 2: Free Speech?
A case study on one approach to the issue.

I hope you have found this useful.



Google search term used: "free speech" "preferred position"
fc225-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars

There are no comments at this time.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy