Anda di halaman 1dari 13

What were the views of Enlightenment thinkers on the subject of freedom?

The enlightenment is the name given to the intellectual movement that developed in the

late seventeenth century and became central during the eighteenth century. As the enlightenment

became more prominent across Europe the amount of enlightenment thinkers, who were considered

the leading figures of this movement, grew dramatically, spreading ideas across Europe and the rest

of the world. Perhaps the most prevalent theme of the enlightenment was freedom, a topic that had

many forms insofar that different thinkers tackled different subtopics. Freedom of course was not

born in the enlightenment but it was a time in which freedom of expression was first subject to

widespread public debate.1 The most predominant topic was freedom of expression which

involved free speech and freedom of press. Historians conclude that the philosophes typically did

not distinguish between the two and used similar arguments to defend both freedoms.2 This essay

will discuss the different approaches of philosophes to the challenge of freedom of expression

during the late seventeenth and eighteenth century European enlightenment. In a general sense

most enlightenment thinkers noticed the need for freedom of expression but the extent of this

liberty often differed between those considered radical those not. By analysing the views of John

Locke, Voltaire, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt and David Hume a variety of approaches will be assessed,

covering different locations and different periods of the enlightenment.

The age of reason is considered to have occurred in the eighteenth century, however

seventeenth century thinkers such as Jonathon Locke were pivotal in paving the way for future

philosophes and no doubt greatly contributed to the question of freedom of expression. The

writings of Locke establish his stance on free speech his belief that human beings have

inalienable rights3 that are guaranteed to citizens by virtue of their status of autonomous,

1
Eijnatten J, In Praise of Moderate Enlightenment: A Taxonomy of Early Modern Arguments in Favor of
Freedom of Expression, (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2011) p.40 in Powers E. Freedom of Speech:
The History of an Idea
2
Eijnatten J, In Praise of Moderate Enlightenment: A Taxonomy of Early Modern Arguments in Favor of
Freedom of Expression, p.20
3
Daniel A, Speech Locked Up: John Locke, Liberalism and the Regulation of Speech, (New Jersey: Seton
Hall University, 2013), p.28
individual beings.4 Locke related freedom to reason asserting that we are born free as we are born

rational,5 explaining their joint necessity6 for the orderly discovery of knowledge.7 To support

this Locke discussed the role of the government in permitting such freedom in Two Treatises of

Government, 1689. Locke aimed to undermine the views of Thomas Filmer, attacking the ideas of

Patriarchia. Filmer, in line with divine right absolutists, claimed that absolutist monarchy was

the only legitimate form of government,8 as legislative powers were formed not through consent

of the people, but rather by the will of God.9 In contrast Locke concludes all men are born free,

equal in their dignity, and equal in their right to exercise liberty,10 meaning the correct state of men

cannot be as Filmer proposes. In the Second Treatise Locke proclaims that the function of

government in a free society11 should be limited to enhancing public welfare, protecting

individuals liberties.12 This of course was the stark opposite of absolutist government13 and was

supporting of governments of limited executory powers.14 Additionally, as justification for the

abandonment of patriarchal authority, Locke recognises that every man has property in his own

person, and in his rights15, such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. This argument is

in line with laws of nature the idea that a persons reason should guide.16 Therefore according to

Locke, government serves the vital function of providing commonly agreed upon laws17 but

should not interfere with natural rights as to preserve and enlarge18 rather than abolish or

restrain,19 freedom of expression, which Locke regarded as a divine right.

4
Daniel A, Speech Locked Up: John Locke, Liberalism and the Regulation of Speech, p.2
5
Locke J, 61: Of Paternal Power in Two Treatise of Government, (Lonang Institute, 2014) available at
http://lonang.com/library/reference/locke-two-treatises-government/loc-206/
6
Schouls P.A., Reasoned Freedom John Locke and Enlightenment, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992)
p.115
7
Rauch J, Kindly Inquisitors The New Attacks on Free Thought, (Chicago: Chicago University Press,
1995), p.59
8
Daniel A, Speech Locked Up: John Locke, Liberalism and the Regulation of Speech, p.15
9
Goldie M, Introduction to John Locke Two Treatises of Government XV, XVIII-XIX, (London: The
Everyman Library, 1993) p.7
10
Ibid
11
OConnor DJ, John Locke, (London: Pelican Books, 1952), p.206
12
Ibid
13
Ibid
14
Goldie M, Introduction to John Locke Two Treatises of Government XV, XVIII-XIX, (London: The
Everyman Library, 1993) p.128
15
Stephens G, Locke, Jefferson, and the Justices: Foundations and Failures of the US Government, (New
York: Algora, 2002), p.79
16
Schouls P.A., Reasoned Freedom John Locke and Enlightenment, p.127
17
Daniel A, Speech Locked Up: John Locke, Liberalism and the Regulation of Speech, p.20
18
Locke J, 57: Of Paternal Power in Two Treatise of Government
19
Ibid
As previously exemplified Johnathon Locke often eluded to freedom of expression when

discussing liberty in a religious context. A clear example of this is 1689 with the publishing of A

Letter Concerning Human Toleration. As with many philosophes, Locke was a pious man who

attempted to present freedom as compatible with standard religious practices.20 This text

introduces the idea that a human being can be the author of his own decisions21 ignoring external

influences.22 Locke begun by stressing toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true

Church.23 This declaration implied that Locke disagreed with the way the Church was intolerant to

those with dissenting opinions,24 accusing immoral behaviour, undoubtedly not the mark of true

Christians.25 For Locke, the very essence of Christianity hinged on toleration of other views26

insofar as the church should never commit acts of aggression to prevent others from practicing

their beliefs.27 God created all men free and equal28 which indeed means that all men have the

God given right to be left to their own consciences,29 even in matters concerning faith. Therefore

to Locke religious freedom meant the right to practice religion of their choosing, not for a church

to nominate itself as true.30 Whilst not directly concerned with freedom of expression Locke is

certainly implying that the Church has no right31 to restrict peoples choices or expression,

whether he be Christian or Pagan.32 Primarily, what Locke is saying is that to silence a speaker

merely because of the effect of his speech or its obnoxious qualities is not merely harmful,33 but

also unfitting of a Christian. It is noteworthy that Locke did not extend this tolerance to Atheists34

as Locke adhered to the view that belief in God was a matter of reason.35 Regardless, Locke

clearly was a defendant of freedom of expression, conveying his view through discourse on

20
Israel J, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670- 1752
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p.43
21
Schouls P.A., Reasoned Freedom John Locke and Enlightenment, p.117
22
Ibid
23
Locke J, A Letter Concerning Toleration 1969, available at http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm
24
Ibid
25
Guider A, Freedom of Expression and the Enlightenment, (Oxford: University of Mississippi Press, 2015),
p.8
26
Ibid
27
Ibid
28
Chappell V, The Cambridge Companion to Locke, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p.239
29
Locke J, A Letter Concerning Toleration 1969
30
Wroth S.J., Schuurman P and Walmsley J, The Continuum Companion to Locke, (London: Continuum,
2010), p.259
31
Guider A, Freedom of Expression and the Enlightenment, p.10
32
Locke J, A Letter Concerning Toleration 1969
33
Daniel A, Speech Locked Up: John Locke, Liberalism and the Regulation of Speech, p.30
34
Lowe E.J., Locke, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2005), p.196
35
Ibid
religious freedom. Locke may not have been active in the eighteenth century but is a prolific

enlightenment thinker who fought for human freedom,36 and passed the torch to future

enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire.

A variety of enlightenment thinkers contributed to the debate on freedom of expression, yet

a few figures are considered central to the debate, one of whom is certainly French philosophe,

Voltaire. Voltaire is acclaimed as the foremost champion of toleration, of liberty of thought and

philosophy.37 Following in the footsteps of his idol John Locke38 Voltaire felt that the revolution

of the mind39 must be introduced gently and gradually40. In fact Voltaire was critical of radicals

claiming that their strategy had disastrous consequences for the philosophes themselves.41

Although Voltaire supported radicals such as Diderot, he himself approached the challenge of free

speech and toleration with moderation.42 Voltaires passion for freedom of expression is evident

from a letter to Helveticas, in 1765, which warned that however unrelenting the strife, freedom of

thought and toleration would be proclaimed indispensable to mankind.43 Regardless, Voltaire

did dedicate specific texts to discussing his thoughts on freedom of expression. One of these was

Philosophical Letters in 1734. This documented Voltaires time in England after being forced to

leave France. Voltaire became a professed anglophile admiring how England was flourishing amid

toleration and freedom of the press dominated by Lockean-Newtonian ides.44 Voltaires time in

England set in motion a process of philosophical maturing and development,45 resulting in a quest

to overturn censorship, relative intolerance, and reverence for outdated authorities and old

quarrels46 in France. Primarily, Voltaire looked at Quakers approving their premise of allowing

36
Chappell V, Oxford Reading in Philosophy: Locke, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) p.86s
37
Israel J, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670- 1752,
p.782
38
Guider A, Freedom of Expression and the Enlightenment, p.33
39
Israel J, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670- 1752,
p.754
40
Ibid
41
Israel J,Libertas Philosophandi in the Eighteenth Century: Radical Enlightenment versus Moderate
Enlightenment (1750-1776). (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2011), p.8 in Powers E, Freedom of
Speech: The History of an Idea.
42
Guider A, Freedom of Expression and the Enlightenment, p.33
43
Israel J,Libertas Philosophandi in the Eighteenth Century: Radical Enlightenment versus Moderate
Enlightenment (1750-1776), p.11
44
Israel J, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670- 1752,
p.756
45
Israel J, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670- 1752,
p.751
46
Ibid
anyone to freely speak on the assumption that no one knows when a man rises up to hold forth

whether he will be moved by the spirit or by folly.47 The idea that people should listen patiently to

everyone48 because judgement cannot be given to work before it is distributed was one Voltaire

believed should be imitated by the French system. Furthermore, Voltaire was also a devout

Christian using his faith to justify the obvious need to freedom of expression as God gave men the

power to reason and think.49 Voltaires writing was outlawed, seen as insulting to France but his

compliments for England came with reason as the English led the way in providing liberty and had

a more educated, reasonable public.50 This writing introduces Voltaires view that freedom of

expression was a necessity to any prosperous nation.

Moreover, prior literature culminated into his Philosophical Dictionary in 1764. The

entries titled Freedom of Thought and Toleration greatly express the views of Voltaire on freedom

of expression. Voltaire is called a knight of tolerance51 expressing acceptance as the the

endowment of humanity52. Voltaire was adamant that toleration had never led to civil war53 and

liberty gave rise to no disorder54 For Voltaire it seemed more than logical that tolerance of those

with different views would deter retaliation against the state, asserting that every citizen shall be

free to follow his own reason provided he does not disturb the public order.55 Additionally,

Voltaire called for toleration and liberty in press denying that books could cause sedition56

analysing that whilst many bore, none caused real harm.57 Drawing on Humes essay from 1742,

Voltaire expounded that only in contemplation of the reading good could be done.58 Voltaire

reasoned that every man has an equal chance of being correct59 and should therefore be allowed

to express opinions. Legitimisation for this was through arguing that if freedom of thought had not

47
Voltaire ed, Morley H, Letters on England, (Project Gutenburg, 2005), p.5
48
Ibid
49
Voltaire ed, Morley H, Letters on England, p.23
50
Voltaire ed, Morley H, Letters on England, p.51
51
Gay P, Editors Instruction, (New York: Basic Books Publishing, 1962), p.8 in Voltaire ed. Gay P,
Philosophical Dictionary
52
Gay P, Toleration, (New York: Basic Books Publishing, 1962), p.482 in Voltaire ed. Gay P, Philosophical
Dictionary
53
McCabe J, Voltaire - Toleration and Other Essays, (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1912) p.25
54
Ibid
55
McCabe J, Voltaire - Toleration and Other Essays, p.54
56
Walton C, Policing Public Opinion in the French Revolution, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009),
p.54
57
Ibid
58
Ibid
59
Guider A, Freedom of Expression and the Enlightenment, p.36
existed in the Roman Empire it would have been impossible for the Christians to establish their

doctrines60 and by extension the Christians themselves should understand the need for freedom of

thought. Voltaires writing had immediate effect and along with Diderots efforts is given credit for

urging King Louis XVI to suspend censorship61 in July 1788. Voltaire was clearly a pioneer of

the freedom of expression movement, adamantly supporting liberty in press and speech and

championing toleration, hence being why the French enlightenment is often labelled the Age of

Voltaire.

While France is commonly accepted to have been the centre of the enlightenment62 other

areas of the world also spawned great contributors to the question of freedom of expression. One of

these was certainly German born Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, whose importance lies with the non-French

perspective and radical views on toleration and freedom63 expressed in On Freedom of Press

and the Edict of Religion. On the freedom of press, disseminated in 1787 by the General

German Book Review,64 was a compilation of the several reasons why Bahrdt thought government

should allow freedom of speech and press. It is a pre-French revolutionary assertion, in the face of

gathering repression, of human rights65 and was well received in more radical journals.66 Bahrdt

was known for abandoning his faith, yet much of his enlightenment thought on freedom was based

on God to appeal to devout listeners. Bahrdt regarded freedom of thought as essential to the

enlightenment regarding freedom to think and to judge independently from authority as the

holiest, most important, most inviolable right of man.67 For many freedom of thought was a

fundamental right but this did not oblige the freedom of expression. For example, Christian

Thomasius and Christian Wolff had both published works fighting for freedom of press but were

60
Gay P, Freedom of Thought, (New York: Basic Books Publishing, 1962), p.355 in Voltaire ed. Gay P,
Philosophical Dictionary
61
Walton C, Policing Public Opinion in the French Revolution, p.51
62
Israel J, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650- 1750. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001) p.52
63
Israel J, Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790 (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2011), p.164
64
Laursen J.C, Zande J.V.D, Luzac E, Early French and German defences of freedom of the press, (Leiden:
Brill, 2003) p.102
65
Thompson M.P, German Enlightenment from the Bottom Up, (Eighteenth-Century Studies 38.2, 2005)
p.374
66
Laursen J.C, Zande J.V.D, Luzac E, Early French and German defenses of freedom of the press, p.102
67
Schmidt J, What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-century Answers and Twentieth-century Questions,
(California: University of California Press, 1996), p.99
content with private freedom and limits on freedom when harm was done to the state, respectively.

Bahrdts conviction that freedom to share ones insights verbally or in writing is just like the

freedom to think68 in that both are universal rights of man69 is what makes him a radical

enlightenment thinker, going way beyond the older natural law in a number of ways70. In the view

of Bahrdt the authority of German Princes be it Frederick the Great or Frederick William the

Second, was irrelevant to the subject of freedom as God gave men the power to reason and

speak.71 To Bahrdt it was an inalienable right not grounded in a state of natural rights and far

above the rights of princes.72 The drastic reasoning in arguably his most important73 pamphlet of

the 14074 may have led to his untimely death in 179275, but was a founding document of the new

liberal tradition76 and eventually became acknowledged as the most correct standard for

judgement of freedom,77 in Germany.

However, despite On the Freedom of Press, Frederik William II, opposed to new

liberties, re-introduced censorship with an Edict of Religion. Bahrdts response in 1788 was a satire

that made fun of Prussias principal minister, Johann Christoph von Woellner, and many other

officials,78 but also demonstrated Bahrdt views on freedom. Bahrdt believed freedom was

restricted by corrupt members of the church and members of the government. In this work, an

incredibly corrupt preacher works on Prussias new edict on religion which would curb the new

enlighteners79, yet uphold the appearance of toleration.80 The preacher, the symbol of authority,

68
Schmidt J, What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-century Answers and Twentieth-century Questions, p.100
69
Bahrdt K.F, On Freedom of the Press and Its Limits: For Consideration by Rulers, Censors, and
Writers, ed. Laursen J.C, Zande J.V.D, Luzac E, Early French and German defenses of freedom of the
press, p.99
70
Laursen J.C, Zande J.V.D, Luzac E, Early French and German defenses of freedom of the press, p.95
71
Laursen J.C, Zande J.V.D, Luzac E, Early French and German defenses of freedom of the press, p.101
72
Klippel D, Natural law as a political theory. The political importance of the German natural law in the
18th and 19th centuries, (Hamburg: Bois, 1987), p.269 in Bodeker H.E and Hermann U, Enlightenment as
Politicization politicization of Education.
73
Smith L A, Carl Friedrich Bahrdt (17401792): On Freedom of Speech and Publication, (Free Speech
Yearbook 38.1, 2000), p.150
74
Ibid
75
Laursen J.C, Zande J.V.D, Luzac E, Early French and German defenses of freedom of the press, p.91
76
Shantz D.H, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt (1740-92): Pietism, Enlightenment, and the Autonomous Self in Early
Modern Germany,(University of Calgary: Canadian Society of Church History, 2012) p. 54
77
Bahrdt C.F, Story of his life, his opinions and fates, Written by Himself, IV (Vienna 1791), p.247
78
Bahrdt C F, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, The Edict of Religion, A Comedy and The Story and Diary of my
Imprisonment, ed. John Christian Laursen and Johan van der Zande (New York: Lexington Books, 2000),
p.22.
79
Ibid
80
Bahrdt C F, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, The Edict of Religion, A Comedy and The Story and Diary of my
Imprisonment, p.25
states reason is the most harmful thing in the world.81 Bahrdt believed authoritys feared freedom

of expression as it would give an enlightened public the power to undermine, challenge and

collectively rival the authorities. The true intention of Bahrdts Edict of Religion was to make

authorities, responsible for censoring free expression, recognise its importance as a universal right,

not just to disrespect authorities82. Bahrdt concluded that everything must be able to be freely

spoken and written, even if the content seemed ridiculous or contrary to most reason83 proclaiming

that freedom of expression should be allowed in a manner of zero restrictions, perhaps the most

radical view of the philosophes in discussion.

The philosophes of the Scottish enlightenment also discussed the topic of freedom greatly.

David Hume wrote extensively on the topic of liberty in press, an important aspect of freedom of

expression. In 1742 Hume published Of the Liberty of the Press. The purpose of this essay was

to investigate what granted the considerable freedom of press in Britain, why this was maintained

and how useful it was. Hume eventually concluded that the disparity in freedom of press between

Britain and notably France84, was because of their different forms of government. Hume

expresses that all mild governments85 have civil liberty thus undermining the view that liberty

existed only in free republics. The purpose of this was to then assert that extreme liberty 86 in

Britain was attributed to the balance between a monarchical and a republican87 system. The

stability of Britains mixed constitution, to Hume, was like no other. Hume states that free press is

the institutionalized form of regular distrust for rulers88, but unlike in Imperial Rome where this

became destructive89, in the British mixed constitution it was useful.90 In a mixed constitution

81
Bahrdt C F, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, The Edict of Religion, A Comedy and The Story and Diary of my
Imprisonment, p.27
82
Laursen J.C, Zande J.V.D, Luzac E, Early French and German defences of freedom of the press, p.101
83
Bahrdt K.F, On Freedom of the Press and Its Limits: For Consideration by Rulers, Censors, and
Writers, ed. Laursen J.C, Zande J.V.D, Luzac E, Early French and German defences of freedom of the
press, p.99
84
Garrido DG, The Ideal of Liberty in the Political Philosophy of David Hume, (Glasgow: University of
Glasgow Press, 2008) p.18
85
Hume D, Of the populousness of ancient nations, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987) p. 382, in Hume D,
Essays Moral, Political and Literary
86
Hume D, Of the Liberty of the Press, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987) p. 9, in Hume D, Essays Moral,
Political and Literary
87
Garrido DG, The Ideal of Liberty in the Political Philosophy of David Hume, p.18
88
Hume D, Of the Liberty of the Press, p. 12
89
Pettit P, 'Republican Theory and Political Trust' (New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1998) p.261, in
Levi M and Braithwaite V, eds., Trust and Governance,
90
Hume D, Whether the British Government inclines, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987) p. 53, in Hume D,
Essays Moral, Political and Literary
like Britain, unlike republics like Holland where provisions of participation 91 are a sufficient

means of protecting92 public liberty, the executive hold unrestricted entitled power. This means

that to protect everyones liberties more freedom of speech than even republics,93 must be

allowed. Humes take on the causes of freedom of expression implies that, other than their role in

public provisions, inhabitants of republics are more bound to authority94 than citizens in a mixed

government. Therefore, Hume answered why Britain allowed the extreme liberty of

communicating whatever we please to the public, and of openly censuring every measure95,

clarifying freedom of press as an instrument of stability without which the mixed constitution could

not balance.

However, even though Humes writing explains his thought on why freedom of expression

is allowed it does not mean Hume believed freedom of press and expression was useful. Famously,

in 1768 Hume made alterations to his essay cutting the original conclusion in light of the Wilkes

and liberty affair that has produced rioting in London. The original conclusion that had been

passionate about the positive contribution free press would make to civil society was replaced with

the proclamation that limitless liberty is an evil96 of mixed government. Hume had once claimed

that nothing is so effectual to the purpose97 of maintaining balance than liberty of press. Hume

argued that as acceptance for mankinds98 opinion increased men accustomed to the free

discussion of public affairs, will improve in judgement and with greater difficulty be

seduced.99 Humes original enthusiasm for the liberty of the press is what makes Duncan Forbes

characterise the change in 1768 as the most striking example of a retreat from a liberal to a less

liberal position100. In the aftermath of the Wilkes affair, Hume began to support the view that

91
Hume D, Independence of Parliament, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987) p. 46, in Hume D, Essays
Moral, Political and Literary
92
Ibid
93
Garrido DG, The Ideal of Liberty in the Political Philosophy of David Hume, p.28
94
Ibid
95
Hume D, Of the Liberty of the Press, p. 9
96
Ibid
97
Hume D, Of the Liberty of the Press, p. 12
98
Hanvelt M, Politeness, a Plurarality of Interests and the Public Realms: Hume on the Liberty of the Press,
(History of Political Thought, 33.4, 2012), p.629
99
Ibid
100
Forbes D, Humes Philosophical Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 184.
unbounded liberty101 can cause rebellions.102 In line with Donald Livingston, it is apparent that

Hume saw in Wilkes a metaphysical tempest brewing,103 confrontation between the mob and the

constitution104 which was a threat that would remove authority altogether.105 Humes urgency to

change his essay shows that the Wilkes case caused Humes view of press freedom to change from

supporting its utility to accepting it as a necessary evil.106 Hume is far less radical than a thinker

like Bahrdt, in that Hume was still in direct support of the constitution, recognising how complete

freedoms when left unmonitored had the potential to tear down authority and order ushering in

barbarism.

In conclusion, the enlightenment was a time in which great minds ushered in an age of

reason. A primary focus of the enlightenment considered freedom and more specifically freedom of

expression. Freedom of expression greatly links to liberty in speech, press and in some regards

religion. Despite the vast number of potential thinkers to discuss, a few stand out as especially

influential regarding the question of freedom of expression. Firstly, Jonathon Locke, an English

philosophe often bracketed as active prior to the enlightenment but no doubt an enlightenment

thinker. Locke focuses on freedom of expression in multiple writing discussing how it is a divine

right, how the government have the task of promoting it and also this libertys link to freedom in a

religious context. Moreover, Locke influenced French enlightenment thinker Voltaire, who is

considered the face of the enlightenment. Voltaire explicitly discusses freedom of thought to be a

necessity to any reasonable nation using England as an example of its success. Discussion about the

importance of toleration is furthered by the work of Voltaire. However, some philosophe were far

more radical such as Germanys Karl Friedrich Bahrdt who fought for total freedom from

censorship and the enablement of expression in verbal or written form. Furthermore, liberty of

press is something also pioneered by the influential David Hume of the Scottish enlightenment.

Hume was far more reserved than Bahrdt and even moderated his prior, more radical, arguments.

101
Hume D, Of the Liberty of the Press, p. 13
102
Hanvelt M, Politeness, a Plurarality of Interests and the Public Realms: Hume on the Liberty of the Press,
p.629
103
Forbes D, Humes Philosophical Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 184.
104
Livingston DW, Humes Philosophy of Common Life (Chicago, 1984), p. 328
105
Livingston DW, Humes Philosophy of Common Life (Chicago, 1984), p. 271
106
Hanvelt M, Politeness, a Plurarality of Interests and the Public Realms: Hume on the Liberty of the Press,
p.629
His importance lies in his discussion of the utility of liberty and the political nature in which

freedom of expression can exist.


References

Bahrdt, K. (1791). Story of his life, his opinions and fates, Written by Himself, IV. Vienna, p.247.
Bahrdt, K., van der Zande, J. and Laursen, J. (2000). Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, The Edict of Religion,
A Comedy and The Story and Diary of my Imprisonment. New York: Lexington, pp.22-27.
Braithwaite, V. and Levi, M. (n.d.). Trust and governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
p.261.
Chappell, V. (1988). Oxford Reading in Philosophy: Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.86.
Chappell, V. (1994). The Cambridge companion to Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, p.239.
Daniel, A. (2013). Speech Locked Up: John Locke, Liberalism and the Regulation of Speech. New
Jersey: Seton Hall University, pp.2-30.
Forbes, D. (1975). Hume's philosophical politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.184.
Garrido, D. (2008). The Ideal of Liberty in the Political Philosophy of David Hume. Glasgow:
Glasgow University Press, pp.18, 28.
Goldie, M. (1993). Introduction to John Locke Two Treatises of Government XV, XVIII-XIX.
London: The Everyman Library, pp.7, 128.
Guider, A. (2015). Freedom of Expression and the Enlightenment,. Oxford: University of
Mississippi Press, pp.8-36.
Hanvelt, M. (2012). Politeness, a Plurarality of Interests and the Public Realms: Hume on the
Liberty of the Press. History of Political Thought, 33(4), p.629.
Hermann, U. and Bodeker, H. (2016). Enlightenment as Politicization politicization of
Education.. Hamburg: Bois, p.269.
Hume, D. (1987). Essays Moral, Political and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp.9, 46, 53,
382.
Israel, J. (2001). Radical enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.52.
Israel, J. (2006). Enlightenment contested. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.43, 745-782.
Israel, J. (2011). Democratic enlightenment. New York: Oxford University Press, p.164.
Livingston, D. (1984). Humes Philosophy of Common Life. Chicago: Chicago University Press,
pp.270, 328.
Locke, J. (1998). John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration. [online] Constitution.org. Available
at: http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm [Accessed 7 Apr. 2016].
Locke, J. (2014). Of Paternal Power - Two Treatises of Government. [online] LONANG Institute.
Available at: http://lonang.com/library/reference/locke-two-treatises-government/loc-206/
[Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
Lowe, E. (2005). Locke. Abingdon: Routledge, p.196.
Luzac, E., Zande, J. and Laursen, J. (2003). Early french and german defenses of freedom of the
press. Leiden: Brill, pp.91-102.
O'Connor, D. (1952). John Locke. London: Pelican Books, p.206.
Powers, E. (2011). Freedom of speech. Lewisburg,: Bucknell University Press, pp.8, 20-40, 135.
Rauch, J. (1995). Kindly inquisitors - The New Attacks on Free Thought. 2nd ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, p.59.
Savonius-Wroth, S., Walmsley, J. and Schuurman, P. (2010). The Continuum companion to Locke.
London: Continuum, p.259.
Schmidt, J. (1996). What is Enlightenment?. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp.99-100.
Schouls, P. (1992). Reasoned freedom. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp.115-140.
Shantz, D. (2016). Karl Friedrich Bahrdt (1740-92): Pietism, Enlightenment, and the Autonomous
Self in Early Modern Germany. Calgary: Canadian Society of Church History, p.54.
Smith, L. (2000). Carl Friedrich Bahrdt (17401792): On Freedom of Speech and Publication. Free
Speech Yearbook, 38(1), pp.142-169.
Stephens, G. (2002). Locke, Jefferson, and the Justices: Foundations and Failures of the US
Government. New York: Algora Publishing, p.79.
Thompson, M. (2005). German Enlightenment from the Bottom Up. Eighteenth-Century Studies,
38(2), pp.374-375.
Voltaire, and Gay, P. (1962). Philosophical dictionary. New York: Basic Books Publishing, pp.8,
355, 482.
Voltaire, and MacCabe, J. (1912). Toleration and other essays. New York and London: G.P.
Putnam's Sons, pp.25, 54.
Voltaire, and Morley, H. (2005). Letters on England. Gutenburg: Project Gutenburg, pp.5-51.
Walton, G. (2009). Policing public opinion in the French Revolution. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp.51-54.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai