Pragmatism versus Purposivism in First Amendment Analysis

By Posner, Richard A. | Stanford Law Review, April 2002 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Pragmatism versus Purposivism in First Amendment Analysis

Posner, Richard A., Stanford Law Review

In The First Amendment's Purpose, (1) Jed Rubenfeld sets against the "cost-benefit balancing" approach to free speech issues, (2) with me as spokesman, (3) an approach that forswears balancing in favor of inquiry into legislative or regulatory purpose ("purposivism"). From certain "paradigm cases" (4)--by which he means constitutional interpretations today uniformly accepted as valid--he infers three things: The First Amendment (5) forbids all regulation intended to limit the expression of opinion ("no one can be punished for expressing himself on a matter of opinion" (6)), regardless of consequences. It forbids no regulation of expression, again regardless of consequences, that is not so intended. And it allows all false factual assertions to be punished.

The contrast between Rubenfeld's approach and the pragmatic approach to free speech and other legal issues, an approach that I have defended, (7) is stark, and provides the stimulus for this paper. I shall assume in what follows that the reader has read his article.

I must explain at the outset what I mean by "pragmatism," "pragmatic adjudication," and "the pragmatic approach to free speech." Pragmatism is a complex philosophical movement (8) the core of which is a challenge to the preoccupation of the central philosophical tradition of the West, from Plato to Kant and Russell and Carnap, with establishing the foundations of knowledge--the conditions under which scientific, moral, and political beliefs can be said to be true. Pragmatists believe that the task of establishing such foundations and so validating our beliefs as objective is either impossible or uninteresting, and in either case not worth doing. The test for knowledge should not be whether it puts us in touch with an ultimate reality (whether scientific, aesthetic, moral, or political) but whether it is useful in helping us to achieve our ends. The human mind developed not to build a pipeline to the truth but to cope with the physical environment in which human beings evolved, and so be tested not by its correspondence with "reality" but by the consequences of believing or disbelieving it.

Pragmatism doesn't lead in a straight line to a philosophy of adjudication. But it encourages a mindset that is skeptical of any such philosophy that casts the judge in the role of a quester after certainty who employs to that end tools as close to formal logic as possible. It encourages the thought that the object of adjudication should be to help society to cope with its problems, and so the rules that judges create as a by-product of adjudication should be appraised by a "what works" criterion rather than by the correspondence of those rules to truth, natural law, or some other high-level abstract validating principle.

This approach is easily derided as unprincipled, ad hoc, and "political"; but it is these things only if it is thought to entail the disregard of the systemic as well as immediate consequences of judicial decisions, which no pragmatist judge worth his salt believes. Indeed, a pragmatist would choose to be a formalist judge if he thought formalism in adjudication would produce on the whole better social consequences than attempting to weigh up the likely consequences of each decision. I happen not to think formalism is a workable judicial philosophy, however, and though it would take me too far afield to argue that here, (9) I shall, in criticizing Rubenfeld's approach, be urging the unworkability of a formalist approach to free speech, even one defended on pragmatic grounds.

The pragmatist who has decided to be not a formalist judge (at least in free speech cases (10)) but a pragmatic one reads the relevant language of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press") but finds nothing very helpful there so far as deciding the actual cases that arise nowadays is concerned. (That is an important qualification, to which I'll return: There is a core of settled meaning to the First Amendment; but settled principles are rarely litigated.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Pragmatism versus Purposivism in First Amendment Analysis


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?