I don’t think “free speech” is itself a commons, but one justification for protecting speech from government interference is the idea that it’s good to encourage flourishing public debate and discussion.
Some people (including Ronald Coase*) have tried to talk about this notion in economic terms, calling public discussion the “marketplace of ideas.” I seem to remember that courts have balked at that particular way of stating the notion, but courts have emphasized that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause highly values public debate. Maybe this just means that courts prefer to work with ideas relating to democratic politics instead of with economic ideas. Defamation cases show one way this line of thinking has played out in the law. A public figure or public official will have a much more difficult time winning a defamation case than a less publicly-involved person would, especially if the alleged defamation relates to a matter of public concern.
* Somewhere in 64 American Economic(s?) Review (1974)
I don’t think “free speech” is itself a commons, but one justification for protecting speech from government interference is the idea that it’s good to encourage flourishing public debate and discussion.
Some people (including Ronald Coase*) have tried to talk about this notion in economic terms, calling public discussion the “marketplace of ideas.” I seem to remember that courts have balked at that particular way of stating the notion, but courts have emphasized that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause highly values public debate. Maybe this just means that courts prefer to work with ideas relating to democratic politics instead of with economic ideas. Defamation cases show one way this line of thinking has played out in the law. A public figure or public official will have a much more difficult time winning a defamation case than a less publicly-involved person would, especially if the alleged defamation relates to a matter of public concern.
* Somewhere in 64 American Economic(s?) Review (1974)