100 RCs for Practice Questions- 94

Passage

Lee Bollinger, rejecting traditional models of the defense of free speech as inadequate, defends it with a model designed to take into account changes in the function of speech attributable to the emergence of a society marked by stability and widespread consensus on essential values. This new, -self-restraint model‖ justifies free speech from a different perspective. Although staunchly supporting free speech, the self-restraint model inverts the relationship between speech and tolerance. Under traditional models, the value of tolerance is subordinated to the value of speech. The self-restraint model, however, often subordinates the value of speech to that of tolerance. Traditional justifications of the free speech principle originated in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity.
A review of the traditional justifications reveals two distinct models of explanation. Although both these models link the need to protect speech to its inherent value, they agree on little else. According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in democratic self-government. Meiklejohn uses the traditional New England town meeting as a paradigm for a self-governing society.
From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech-the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Meiklejohn insists that even extremist views cannot be withheld from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue. Protection of free speech, including extremist political speech, serves the collective interests of a self-governing society, made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens. Predicated on the belief that speech itself is valuable, this theory ascribes positive value to a very broad range of speech, including any that may be offensive to many people.
In contrast to the serene and optimistic, the fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. According to Holmes, speech represents not so much a free marketplace of ideas as a kind of -counsel of despair.‖ Freedom of speech is necessary to the discovery of truth; but, although any belief held by an individual is ultimately likely to prove false, individuals tend to feel certain about their beliefs and consequently justified in requiring others to conform. From Holmes' perspective, the government and any majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In order to protect speech from the natural tendency to censor nonconforming views, the fortress model prescribes overprotection of speech. This strategy establishes a broad "buffer zone" that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Even if speech is so extreme that it cannot seriously be considered to contribute to the discovery of truth-like the most extreme views propounded by the Nazis-it still ought not to be censored, for once unleashed censorship cannot be reasonably expected to remain confined to worthless views.