The Areopagitica and Free Speech, Part 3: The Areopagitica and Its Arguments

He wisely warned that censors on the government’s payroll might turn out to be “incompetent," and banning everything even slightly different from the Church of England monopoly “would require impossible infrastructure,” as the restrictions could ban even music and social niceties if the clergy became that drunk with power. 

If speech restrictions exist that the government has no true power to enforce, that would be a very good time to protest. Because “sometimes ‘God shakes a Kingdome with strong and healthfull commotions to a general reforming," Milton put his heart and soul into his protest to draw Parliament’s attention to the fact that most literary works were under attack. In the face of the free speech problem, Milton championed freedom for all writers. Sagely, Milton chose to try to reconstruct his era’s image to allow for freer speech. 

Motivations

Milton could have fought for a free press partly because he himself was keenly invested in his works; he possibly showed empathy as he campaigned for other authors to be able to share their writings with others. During the time the Areopagitica was in production, Milton was even losing his eyesight, but he fought for poetry anyway. 

It was argued by researcher Charles Osgood that Milton became outraged “only when evil touched his own case” for motives of “egoism,” but Milton could have fought partly from a selfless motive, as the censors already left his works intact most of the time. When writing about Milton, Osgood supports this possibility through an admission that Milton’s “genius was large enough to include the general case and cause of mankind."

Was there unacceptable speech?

When there is a paradigm for acceptable writing, the culture necessarily needs one for unacceptable works. From Milton’s established standpoint thus far, what is unacceptable media? What must be censored, and when is it permissible to censor literary works? 

In his perspective, unacceptable media may likely be the form that is intended to incite violence, which is a standard akin to that of the U.S. Constitution. The argument expressed in the Areopagitica, for the most part, has a striking similarity to that of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Milton allows any literary works created and studied with the intent to discover truth, but never speech that is “superstition,” “popery,” or “evil absolutely against either faith or manners, which no law can possibly permit” if the work does not “intend to unlaw itself,” meaning that the sinful actions contained in the work are not exposed as sin eventually.

Milton accepts inquisitive arguments about the meaning of true doctrine, but more civil discussion – the “bond of peace” — is a necessity to prevent different interpretations of scripture from being a reason for unproductive fighting. “Popery” and “superstition” likely mean arguments that are untruthful and cannot become productive, instead of, for instance, someone who happens to be Catholic (for instance) writing a book that contains information helpful to any reader discovering truth without needing to be Catholic himself. Books advocating forced obedience to one denomination’s teaching are not allowed in this framework.

Who is going to define such rules? Milton meant for all books to be available to the public, even when authors had different religious beliefs; he rattles off Greek authors and mythological beings, many early church fathers (often Catholic) and Biblical figures, and Roman scholars as examples. 

Milton even mentions St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and author of Against Heresies, knowing Irenaeus was Catholic. Irenaeus became one of Milton's examples because he wrote against false doctrines affecting the Church in his era, and Milton argued that knowledge was power. 

Truth was a descriptor for all moral principles that most religions already were teaching, as well as for academic knowledge assisting readers to remain less isolated from the world, and classical literary themes useful for understanding the human condition (i.e. themes frequently included in Greek mythology), making gratuitously violent works untruthful and out of the question. The ability to discover truth and to have civil discussion is the answer. 

Milton's goal falling apart in practicality?

While the argument can be read upon first glance as Milton allowing everything peaceful and beneficial, he unfortunately did not want Catholics to be able to directly share their own beliefs with others. Milton allowed books on academic topics no matter what religious beliefs the author had, due to his love of knowledge, but did not want Catholics to actually proselytize to the reader. Thus, Milton's free-speech goal was partially broken in that regard. Instead, Milton wanted Catholics to lose their proselytism privileges in favor of Puritan authors — those that showed more support for his own beliefs. 

In practicality, Milton ignored the fact that freedom to proselytize plus freedom to write about any research topics would allow Britain to progress. 

However, all of Milton's other ideas in his argumentative essay are important for free speech, when separating them from this mistake, and his perspectives on free speech are important to know to understand the progress of permissible speech in history. 

More often than not, the Areopagitica and even the U.S. Constitution had similar ideas, such as the ability to read and choose books of one's own accord. Knowing the arguments contained in speech-related documents can be useful in discussing the history and applications of free speech principles.