The Intellectual Origins of Free Speech: From Hobbes to Locke

Why read Hobbess Leviathan?

o (1) It gave modern Europeans a vocabulary for thinking about
(i) the purpose of a commonwealth (i.e., any association of people that is
designed to preserve and promote human life)
(ii) the relationship between a commonwealths sovereign power (i.e. the
person or group of people that makes civil laws and has the right to put to death
anyone who poses a danger to the commonwealth) and its subjects (i.e. those
who are required to obey civil laws)
(iii) the origin, scope, and purpose of civil law (i.e. those commands of the
sovereign that are designed to ensure peace and equality among subjects)
In short: Hobbes thinks the reason that human beings should create a
commonwealth, subject themselves to a sovereign power, and obey
civil law, is that, left to their own devices, human beings will pursue
their natural right or absolute liberty to do whatever they believe is
necessary to preserve and promote their own life (including murder and
slavery), resulting in a state of war (i.e. any period of time in which one
human being has to worry that another human being threatens their life
or liberty). It is thus a natural law (i.e. a duty that anyone should obey if
they reason about things) to seek peace and join a commonwealth.
o (2) It was in response to the theory of commonwealth introduced in the Leviathan that
people invented the idea of freedom of speech.
Importantly, Hobbess theory implies that being part of a society requires you to
renounce your natural liberty (your right to everything) in exchange for civil
liberty (your natural liberty minus whatever the civil law prohibits).
In terms of free speech, Hobbes thought that the sovereign power was
responsible for ensuring that subjects received instruction in beliefs that would
be conducive to treating others equally and respecting the authority of the
sovereign power. Insofar as Hobbes believes that sovereign power is absolute,
this means that it can in principle punish people for espousing beliefs that are
contrary to equity and peace and that it can adopt civil laws that would
constrain teaching in Universities.
In conclusion, Hobbes thinks that free speech, like any other natural liberty, can
be abridged by the sovereign power in the name of preserving the safety and
security of the people.

When it comes to freedom of religious and moral teachings, Hobbes that the citizenry ultimately needed
to obey the commonwealth:

in a commonwealth a subject that has no certain and assured revelation particularly to himself
concerning the will of God is to obey for such the command of the commonwealth; for if men were at
liberty to take to take for Gods commandments their own dreams or fancies, or the reams and fancies
of private men, scarce two men would agree upon what is Gods commandment; and yet in respect of
them every man would despite the commandments of the commonwealth. I conclude, therefore, that in
all things not contrary to the moral law (that is to say, to the law of nature) [to allow yourself to do
nothing to others that you would not be willing for them to do to you] all subjects are bound to obey
that for divine law which is declared to be so by the laws of the commonwealth (188).