Nicholas Zettel's Viewpoint "Free speech obligation differs from right" deserves further discussion. However, given his stance on the limits of speech, I suspect he would disagree that I should be allowed to express my view, as I might "contradict the moral needs of the citizenry."

After navigating through the philoso-babble that is Zettel's discussion of the right to say something (which he defines as merely a legal/political question) versus what one ought to say (speech that adheres to some yet-to-be-defined morality), one finally discovers the core of his position: "in a true democracy, one in which people are indeed free, the people themselves would take initiative to ban harmful, violent or derogatory statements… wouldn't a true democracy have the means to allow truthful freedom and limit content of speech that contradicts the moral needs of the citizenry?" In other words, Zettel wants free society to voluntarily limit speech to that which… well, we don't really know what we could say. But what is clear is that if Zettel disagrees with it, you shouldn't be able to say it.

I agree that some speech is hateful and harmful, but the response should not be to ban that speech, but to encourage more speech. If someone says something you find morally reprehensible, then express that you find it to be so. Not only can such a discourse lead to mutual understanding, but society may also benefit from a discussion of why people hold their respective beliefs. Banning speech does not allow for these opportunities. Since Zettel clearly has an interest in philosophy, I suggest he read Mill or Hegel for a more eloquent argument in favor of open discourse.

Furthermore, a policy of free speech has the added benefit that eventually racists, sexists, blowhards and the intellectually deficient will reveal themselves; we then have the choice to ignore or condemn them. Banning "violent, hateful or derogatory statements" forces these people to remain silent, resulting in underground societies and resentment for the powers enforcing silence, among other legally and morally undesirable effects.

Finally, we should also note the failure to address the question of who would decide what "contradicts the moral needs of the citizenry." Let's be honest: people have reasonable disagreements about the moral needs of society. Limiting speech to that which advances the "moral needs" of society inevitably leads to free speech for those who have power and limited speech for those who lack power. Limiting speech necessarily prevents all citizens from being "truly… equal citizens, and free citizens." Limiting speech is inherently undemocratic.

Responding to provocative and hateful statements by banning speech, as Zettel suggests, requires our democracy to act as dictator to itself. My hope is that my fellow citizens will continually reflect upon the benefits and disadvantages of living in a democratic society and will decide in favor of reaffirming our democracy, messy free speech and all.