The Certainty Analysis

If one is a “single vision” scholar of the Aristotelian school, then he looks for the telos of things – that is, the purpose of something or the end towards which it aims. Of course, such pursuits are premised on the foundational idea that all things have both such singular purposes and that we can discern them. By the same token, if one is a “single vision” scholar of the Enlightenment school, then he looks for the ways – scientific and social – that the world can be explained in some comprehensive and intelligible way. Yet again, if one is a “single vision” scholar of the Democratic Governance school, then he or she looks for all the ways by which government, in all its diverse aspects, can be reconciled with that overriding idea. In the

In this regard, we may be entirely certain of the Truth of our own cause or of the Evil of another’s cause so as to demand that our side of the story be the Whole Truth. It all comes out the same in the censorial wash. This holds true for how we think about the First Amendment and how we theorize about it. Whether it be Milton or Meiklejohn, the Enlightenment principle or the checking function, or self-realization or democratization, such theories serve to cabin speech, curb expression, or cut short some idea or ideology or way of communicating something from one person to another. This is so even when such theories of truth might advance the cause of free speech in the short run but restrict it in the long run. Simply consider the case of the famed free speech theorist Alexander Meiklejohn (1872-1974). Unquestionably, his bold views helped to user in a new and liberating mindset in our First Amendment jurisprudence, which was quite important in the years leading up to, during, and shortly after the McCarthy era. Then again, Zechariah Chafee (who had rallied to Meiklejohn’s defense when Amherst’s trustees fired him for unpopular ideas) criticized the great scholar’s free speech norms when he took skeptical aim at them in a Harvard Law Review article – Meiklejohn’s public vs private speech dichotomy, Zechariah maintained, was both ill-conceived and capable of being applied to censor