In the United States, we all have a legal right to free speech. Many people also believe we have a moral right to say pretty much whatever we want. But should everyone have the same freedom to speak their minds? When shouldn’t we share our beliefs, even when we truly, wholeheartedly believe them?
It’s an odd question at first glance. Let’s take a look at an example that might give us reason to ask it: in the spring of 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world’s top men’s tennis player Novak Djokovic said this about a potential vaccine for the virus: “Personally I am opposed to vaccination and I wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel.” Djokovic, it must be said, does not have a medical degree, nor does he have any sort of degree in epidemiology (the study of disease transmission). Nonetheless, this is his sincerely held belief. He risked his status as the No. 1 player in the world, and all the prize money and endorsements that entails, by holding this belief. And yet he held it. As he has said in response to criticism, “I have expressed my views because I have the right to and I also feel responsible to highlight certain essential topics that are concerning the tennis world.”
It’s certain that he has the right to express his views. But should he? On one view, Djokovic is engaging in something called “epistemic trespassing,” the practice of using one’s authority in one field to pretend to expertise in another. While he is an expert on tennis, he is not an expert on vaccinations. As a general rule, we might say that one should not tout opinions about subjects in which one is not an expert. This is especially true when your comments can influence many people, as is the case for celebrities. Certainly, epistemic trespassing can cause a great deal of harm. It is very likely the number of celebrities who have come out against vaccinations based on the faulty and discredited claim that vaccinations cause autism have some responsibility for the recent outbreaks of measles, a disease nearly eradicated in the U.S. before the rise of the anti-vaxxer movement, and the lives they have cost.
On the other hand, celebrities can do great good when the views they express are good. Among other stars of their time, Sammy Davis, Jr., Nina Simone, and Marlon Brando are credited with increasing the visibility of and spurring on the civil rights movement in the U.S. A celebrity endorsement of a good cause, of a charity or movement, can spur beneficial social change. Plus, there is no good standard for determining which celebrity opinions are good and which are bad more than there is a good standard for determining which of our own opinions are good or bad. At best, we determine the value of opinions collectively. And, if that’s the case, shouldn’t we let celebrities share their thoughts like the rest of us? We may criticize them or agree but having more opinions may only help us better approximate the truth. It’s clear there are certain benefits to having celebrities express their opinions, and they definitely have the right to do so. But whether they always should is far more difficult to answer.
–DISCUSSION QUESTIONS–
Should celebrities express their opinions on matters outside their areas of expertise? Should any of us express our opinions on matters outside our areas of expertise? What makes a person an expert on something or not? Who gets to decide whether you’re an expert?
If certain people shouldn’t express certain opinions of theirs, at least publicly, should there be a law against expressing those opinions? Why or why not? If not, why should people have the right to express opinions that they shouldn’t express? Why, in general, should you have the right to do things you shouldn’t?
Should celebrities be held morally responsible for expressing opinions outside their areas of expertise? Or should fans be held responsible for listening to those opinions when they know those celebrities aren’t experts in those areas?