Communication Quote by John Corvino
““Why the double standard of counting dignitary harm (in addition to material harms) against conscience claims, but not at all against speech? This is a challenge to which progressives have no response” (p. 172). I have two responses, both of which show that there is no double standard. First, Anderson and Girgis get the relevant distinction wrong. It is not between freedom of speech and freedom of conscience/religion but between freedom of speech and freedom of action. The Kleins of Sweet Cakes engaged in both, and both were an expression of religious conscience. It was their refusal of service, however—their action, not their speech—that triggered government sanction. The right question to ask, then, is why count dignitary harm against freedom of action (religious or otherwise) but not against freedom of speech (religious or otherwise)? The answer to that question is that in general, actions pose greater risks than speech.””
About This Quote
Source Book: Freedom of Speech and the Law, 2021
The distinction lies between speech and conduct; actions, not speech, invite regulation because they pose greater societal risk.
In simple terms: Actions are regulated, not speech.
Key Takeaway
Focus on protecting speech while addressing harmful actions.
Themes
law
free speech
religion
public policy
Mood
thought‑provoking
analytical
Type
philosophical
legal
When to use this quote
- court cases
- legislative debates
- public protests
Key Concepts
speech‑action distinction
legal standards
risk assessment
Questions to Reflect On
- What limits should be placed on speech?
- How do we protect action without stifling expression?
A Different Perspective
Balancing act may suppress legitimate dissent.
