Historically a distinction is made between natural rights and legal rights. The United States constitution speaks of "inalienable rights": Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Philosophers as far back as Cicero (and further) distinguish between natural law and legal law. What follows is not a philosophical treatise or a well researched thesis. Rather, it is an instrument to put my mind in order. I appreciate any feedback, and welcome any good faith discussion. I intend to explore the question: Is Freedom of Speech a Natural Right?
What is a Natural Right?
Different philosophers have had different exact definitions of natural rights and natural law. To make a working definition I have attempted to distill from these definitions the following characteristics:
- A natural right is inherent in all humans, it is not bestowed upon you by an authority, it is derived merely from being human.
- Natural rights cannot be surrendered by an individual.
- Natural rights are not constrained by time or location.
- Natural rights are negative rights - they only prohibit others from impinging on that right, they do not require a positive action from others for the right to be sustained.
Natural rights are distinct from human rights, although they overlap significantly. Human rights may include positive rights for example.
Are natural rights universal?
Both natural rights and human rights are considered universal and in some cases even absolute. However, just defining them to be so of course does not immediately result in the cessation of their violation. Some countries have not ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or have done so only partially. Some communities only recognize a subset and think the rest ridiculous.
For all the human rights, at least, exceptions can also be found. Some states in the US still implement a death penalty (violating the right to life). Freedom of thought is violated, among others, by countries that implement religious rules prohibiting apostasy. Bodily integrity can be violated when a police officer apprehends a criminal.
Given the exceptions that occur in the real world, neither natural nor human rights are universal in practice, only in ideal. To some it is thus tempting to label them as social constructs. These rights do not exist objectively, only in relationship to society. They are deals that we make between each other.
Positive rights can certainly be labelled as such. A clear example is the right to an education. Not only does this right entail that a person should not be prohibited from seeking information, but also that society should prepare measures to make sure that information can be imparted upon an individual. This right is clearly socially constructed.
Natural rights, being negative rights, do not necessitate a society or even another human in order for a person to exercise them. They merely should not be violated. If only a single person were to exist on Earth, their right to life, inherent in their existence and not granted to them by any authority, could be exercised. The same goes for their freedom of thought and their right to bodily integrity.
One could argue that rights are only of use in the context of a society, as they govern interactions between people. Rights are not necessary in a world containing a single person. This is where the natural portion of "Natural rights" comes in. They are bestowed upon an individual not by virtue of another human's approval, but by nature itself. An individual may exercise their natural rights because they can and because nature has endowed the individual with them. Much the same that it is the natural right of a bird to fly and the natural right of a fish to swim. Had nature not given them that right, then they could not exercise it.
Given that natural rights, in contrast to human rights, are not granted by a society but by nature, and can exist outside society, they are not social constructs. We may, however, form social constructs around these natural rights to ensure that they are not violated. For example, article 11 of the Dutch constitution protects the inviolability of the human body - under certain conditions - but article 11 is not the same as the natural right itself.
Social constructs are often also implied to be arbitrary. Since social constructs are derived from collections of humans, whatever meaning they have is completely up to that society. The value of money is an example of this - a 500¥ coin will buy me a loaf of bread in a Japanese Ito Yokado grocery store without issue. Were I to try the same in the Netherlands would merely yield a blank stare and a request for the appropriate currency. The value of money is a social construct that does not exist outside a particular society, let alone objectively.
Natural rights, however, are contingent upon human nature. While human beings differ in many ways, both temperamentally and physically, there exists a definition of human nature that is universal. All humans are human by definition, and from the qualities of this human nature do we derive the natural rights.
What do Natural Rights entail?
Natural rights are obviously not the be all and end all of law. There are many important rights and duties that are not part of natural law, and thus must be proscribed in legal law. Nor does a functioning society require that all natural rights are absolute. It is evident that the better societies to live in are founded upon collaboration, and those require a significant degree of social integration. I will not argue that all natural rights should be absolute, that they can under no circumstance be violated. I recognize that sometimes it is necessary to apprehend a criminal, thereby violating their bodily integrity. I think that in cases of self-defense, one may kill in order to preserve one's own life.
Given this, I think Natural Rights should entail the following:
- They ought to be held in the highest regard, higher even than human rights (where they do not overlap), that is to say:
- We should build societies with the least constraints upon natural rights.
- We should condemn when natural rights are violated flippantly.
- We should recognize the tragedy when natural rights are violated by necessity.
- Violating an individual's natural rights should be looked upon as violating that person's humanity, as that is where those rights are derived from.
Is Freedom of Speech a Natural Right?
Given my working definition of natural rights, is freedom of speech a natural right?
- In the most conservative form, freedom of speech is a negative right. It does not require another person or a society to utter what an individual thinks.
- There is no underlying requirement outside of a single person wishing to speak their mind. It is merely an extension from freedom of thought, which is a natural right.
- To speak is certainly part of human nature. If the ability to speak were not part of human biology, we would not have evolved to be the creatures we are today.
Thus, I consider the most conservative form of freedom of speech, that is, to utter any words that a person wishes, to be a natural right. To violate that right is to violate human nature, and we should abstain from doing so whenever possible. Should a circumstance arise where silencing a person's speech is necessary, we should do so based on the principle that the least amount of restriction should be placed on that individual's right.