I. Introduction



II. The First Amendment Freedom of Speech: A Hermeneutic Approach

A. Justice Black and Protestant Theology

B. Originalism and Schleiermacher's Hermeneutics

C. Gadamer's Hermeneutics and Law as Interpretation

D. Theory and Tradition: Habermas' Critique of Gadamer's Hermeneutics



III. The Quest for a Theory of Free Speech

A. The Search for Truth

B. Self-Government

C. Autonomy

D. Self-Realization

E. A Plurality of Principles

F. Some Lessons for a New Theory



IV. The Theory of Communicative Action

A. Speech and Communicative Action: The Theory of Speech Acts

B. The Distinction Between Communicative Action...

I. Introduction



II. The First Amendment Freedom of Speech: A Hermeneutic Approach

A. Justice Black and Protestant Theology

B. Originalism and Schleiermacher's Hermeneutics

C. Gadamer's Hermeneutics and Law as Interpretation

D. Theory and Tradition: Habermas' Critique of Gadamer's Hermeneutics



III. The Quest for a Theory of Free Speech

A. The Search for Truth

B. Self-Government

C. Autonomy

D. Self-Realization

E. A Plurality of Principles

F. Some Lessons for a New Theory



IV. The Theory of Communicative Action

A. Speech and Communicative Action: The Theory of Speech Acts

B. The Distinction Between Communicative Action and Strategic Action

C. Discursive Justification: The Ideal Speech Situation

D. Communicative Ethics: Discursive Will Formation

E. Lifeworld and System



V. A Theory of Freedom of Communicative Action

A. Scope of the Freedom: Communicative Action and Not Strategic Action

B. Content of the Freedom: Three Principles

C. Problems Applying the Model of the Ideal Speech Situation

D. Justification Revisited: Integrating Existing Theories



VI. Application to Problems in First Amendment Doctrine

A. Distinguishing Communicative Action from Strategic Action

B. Realizing Equality of Communicative Opportunity

C. Tension Within the Theory: Libel of Public Figures



VII. Conclusion

A. Explaining First Amendment Decisions: Reconstructive Science and Judicial Intuition

B. Freedom of Communicative Action: The Tension Between Ideal Theory and Realization

C. Legal Thought As Social Theory: Implications for the Theory of Communicative Action



Words are deeds.

We are still searching for an adequate theory of the first amendment freedom of speech. Despite a plethora of judicial opinions and scholarly articles, there are fundamental conflicts over the meaning of the words "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." [FN2] This Article examines the possibility that recent developments in social theory can aid our understanding of the freedom of speech. My thesis is that Jurgen Habermas' theory of communicative action can serve as the basis for an interpretation of the first amendment that fits the general contours of existing first amendment doctrine and provides a coherent justification for the freedom of speech.



Haberma...

We are still searching for an adequate theory of the first amendment freedom of speech. Despite a plethora of judicial opinions and scholarly articles, there are fundamental conflicts over the meaning of the words "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." [FN2] This Article examines the possibility that recent developments in social theory can aid our understanding of the freedom of speech. My thesis is that Jurgen Habermas' theory of communicative action can serve as the basis for an interpretation of the first amendment that fits the general contours of existing first amendment doctrine and provides a coherent justification for the freedom of speech.



Habermas' theory takes as its point of departure the speech act theory developed through contemporary analytic philosophy and linguistics.
The central theme of speech act theory is that speech is action; communication coordinates individual behavior through achieving rational understanding.

Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of t...

Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.

– "Conversation about God and the World." Time of transitions. Cambridge: Polity Press 2006, p. 150-151

In other words Habermas does not believe speech is action.

He believes in brainwashing and programing.

That is not that different from his evolution has programed unique verbal cue responses into humans as if we are robots idea.

This framework rests on the argument called universal pragmatics - that all speech acts have an inherent telos (the Greek word for "purpose" or "goal") — the goal of mutual understanding, and that human beings possess the communicative competence to bring about such understanding.

This is completely false. Human beings are neither robots nor Gods.

Much speech is purely experimental. accidental and simple idleness.

The growth process of the mind in not predictable by the mind of the thinker nor by the outsider. Thus use of speech regardless of conscious or intellectual intent must have in many if not all cases a PROCESS result that is only roughly predictable.

If one cannot predict the result of their own speech with certainty, it utter fantasy to pretend to understand the dynamics of the interaction between 2 or more speakers.