While agreeing with Seana Shiffrin that any free speech theory must depend on assumptions about our need for free thinking, I am sceptical about her claim that her thinker-based approach provides the best explanation for freedom of speech. Her argument has some similarities with Mill’s argument from truth and with self-development theories, though it improves on the latter. But the thinker-based approach does not show why political discourse, broadly construed, is protected more strongly in all jurisdictions than gossip and sexually explicit speech. Nor does it explain why the ‘mass’ speech of corporations and the mailings of political parties and charities are fully protected by provisions such as the First Amendment. My article concludes with some reflections on the relationship of abstract political theory such as Shiffrin’s to constitutional law; abstract theory must inevitably make some compromises if it is fully to explain constitutional jurisprudence.

中文翻译：

---

对基于思想家的言论自由方法的思考

虽然同意 Seana Shiffrin 的任何言论自由理论都必须依赖于关于我们需要自由思考的假设，但我对她声称她的基于思想家的方法为言论自由提供了最佳解释持怀疑态度。她的论点与密尔从真理出发的论点和自我发展理论有一些相似之处，尽管它对后者有所改进。但基于思想家的方法并没有说明为什么广义上的政治话语在所有司法管辖区都比八卦和露骨的性言论受到更强有力的保护。它也没有解释为什么公司的“群众”演讲以及政党和慈善机构的邮件受到第一修正案等条款的充分保护。我的文章最后对希弗林等抽象政治理论与宪法的关系进行了一些反思；抽象理论要充分解释宪法学，必然要做出一些妥协。