- User contributions [en]

Freedom of Expression/Limitations - Restrictions/Private curtailment

2024-08-02T01:34:41Z

Iaz2024:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Private curtailment
|questionHeading=Is this right at times curtailed by private actors?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Freedom of expression exists at the core of the United States of America and the freedoms it guarantees to its people. Beyond a core tenet in America, freedom of expression holds a defining place in democracies around the world, shaping their culture and development. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations in December 1966, explains how freedom of expression “shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice” (U.N. General Assembly 1966, art. 19). With such importance, infringement upon this freedom can be extremely contentious. In US history, this context has resulted in the development of the State Action Doctrine as delivered by the Supreme Court. According to the State Action Doctrine, “the US Constitution in general, and its individual rights in particular, apply only to state action, not to private action” ("State Action" 2017). In understanding the question of whether private actors curtail freedom of expression, the State Action Doctrine responds with a definite yes. This understanding has been developed through a series of court cases, creating a precedent that allows for private actors to breach free expression.

In United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court ruled “the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to violations of civil rights by individual citizens.” (United States v. Cruikshank, 1875). This landmark decision took place following the Colfax Massacre wherein “300 white Democrats, many of them former Confederate soldiers,” were hoping “to dislodge an armed cadre of 150 freedmen and white Republicans who had barricaded themselves inside” in order to protect an election (Pusey 2021, 72). Due to the absence of civil rights protections in Louisiana, where the Colfax Massacre occurred, the state bore no responsibility and could not prosecute individuals for violating others' rights. This case is relevant to understanding how freedom of expression can be curtailed by private actors. It set a precedent that allowed private actors to infringe upon others' rights, such as voting, because of the state's lack of responsibility.

While legal precedents focus on the ability to discriminate, freedom of expression remains relevant because the freedoms “of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition,” that comprise expression can be subject to that discrimination (ACLU, 2002). Further legal contributions exist along with social media usage statistics that present high percentages of US adults using various platforms. A Pew Research report found that 83% of US adults reported they ever used Youtube, 68% used Facebook, and 47% used Instagram (Pew Research Center, 2024). The private actors that run social media companies are able to curtail freedom of expression aided by Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This provided “immunity to those that screened or removed offensive or indecent material that was posted on their sites by third parties” (First Amendment Encyclopedia, s.v. "Communications Decency Act and Section 230"). Originally created to “prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit materials on the internet,” the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has granted media platforms the ability to tailor violations of freedom of expression. Instagram, a social media platform used by just under 50% of Americans, explains their terms for content removal within their community guidelines (Pew Research Center, 2024) They “may remove entire posts if either the imagery or associated captions violate their guidelines,” some of those violations being nudity, promoting hate speech, and bullying amongst others (Instagram Help Center, n.d.). With laws and legal precedents to support infringement and equal opportunity and anti-discrimination policies protecting people’s freedoms, private actors are certainly able to curtail freedom of expression, but with limitations.

References

ACLU. 2002. “Freedom of Expression.” American Civil Liberties Union. March 1, 2002. https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression.

"Communications Decency Act and Section 230." First Amendment Encyclopedia. Accessed June 24, 2024. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/communications-decency-act-and-section-230/#:~:text=To%20encourage%20internet%20service%20providers,their%20sites%20by%20third%20parties.

Instagram Help Center. s.v. "Privacy Settings." Accessed June 24, 2024. https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119#.

Pusey, Allen. "Colfax Massacre Convictions Tossed: March 27, 1876." ABA Journal 107, no. 1 (February-March 2021): 72. Gale Academic OneFile. Accessed June 20, 2024. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A653471522/AONE?u=anon~c9675132&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=4c07453e.

Pew Research Center. "Social Media Use in 2024." Pew Research Center. January 31, 2024. Accessed June 24, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2024/01/PI_2024.01.31_Social-Media-use_report.pdf.

"State Action." Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law. Last modified February 2017. https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e473#:~:text=The%20state%20action%20doctrine%20of,action%2C%20not%20to%20private%20action.

U.N. General Assembly. 1966. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.

United States v. Cruikshank. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Early Christianity

2024-08-02T00:50:13Z

Iaz2024: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |section=Philosophical Origins |question=Tradition contributions |questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right? |breakout=Early Christianity |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=The introduction of Christianity met intolerance in Rome as a new religion. Its novelty was justification enough for widespread suspicion and scorn for its new followers. “Judaism's ancient hi..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Early Christianity
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The introduction of Christianity met intolerance in Rome as a new religion. Its novelty was justification enough for widespread suspicion and scorn for its new followers. “Judaism's ancient history is one of the primary reasons why Rome tolerated its presence and made special exemptions with regards to emperor worship and Jewish rituals” (Weibe 2008, 15). Deviance from existing religious cultures was a test of the tolerance of free religion in society. While Judaism had an accepted position in common society, the history of persecution at the onset of early Christianity proves a lack of said freedom. "Association with Judaism would then have had advantages, since Christians could move under the protective umbrella of Judaism"1 (Wilson 1995, 13). The guise of Judaism provided Christianity with virtue, making it more tolerable. This would not prove successful, as the subsequent persecution of Christians took place on the basis of complete intolerance. “The mere declaration Christianus sum made them liable to the death-penalty” (Janssen 1979, 134). As enforced by the Roman government beginning after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, Christian persecution would become the standard in the Roman Empire. “[D]uring actual persecutions, oftentimes those interrogating accused Christians would allow them to live if they recanted being a Christian” (Weibe 2008, 10). Freedom of religion was notably nonexistent at the early stages of Christianity.

Other religions in Rome, however, experienced tolerance differently. Policies of toleration within the Empire were curtailed "when [...] cults were reputed to be immoral or were a danger to the good order and security of the state" (Canfield 1913, 45). Thus, Christianity posed a significant threat to the social order in its earlier centuries. Nero’s rule was an early example of the persecution to come. "Decius (249-251) was the first emperor to launch a systematic persecution against Christianity" (Plescia 1971, 124). Later, under Emperor Diocletian’s rule, religious edicts led to greater intolerance towards Christianity. "Following conferences in Nicomedia (302-303) among Diocletian, the Caesar Galerius, and their chief adviser, Hierocles, Diocletian decided to 'terminate' Christianity" (Lactantius, Mort. pers. 16.4; Ferguson 2013, 898). The severity of each persecution varied by ruler, but ample evidence indicates that religious freedom for Christians was consistently limited.

This changed with the Edict of Milan in 313. History shows a significant shift in societal acceptance of Christianity under Emperor Constantine. This newfound integration of the religion in Rome marked a transition from external intolerance to an understanding of religious freedom within Christianity itself. Lactantius, an early Christian author, became an advisor to Emperor Constantine. Constantine was the first Christian Emperor of Rome and passed the Edict of Milan, which "decriminalized Christianity and decreed that Roman citizens had ‘the liberty to observe the religion of [their] choice, and [their] particular mode of worship’" ("Arch of Constantine," Piranesi in Rome). Given his advisory role and influential contributions in early Christianity, "Lactantius [...] influenced Constantine’s religious policy" and "is an ideal lens through which to study Rome’s religious transformation" (Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. The Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius & Rome. Cornell University Press, 2000). It is with this perspective that freedom of religion from the viewpoint of an early Christian was permissible.

In Divine Institutes, his most notable theological work, Lactantius wrote about his views on religious tolerance: "But since the truth is revealed from heaven to us who have received the mystery of true religion, and since we follow God, the teacher of wisdom and the guide to truth, we call together all, without any distinction either of sex or of age, to heavenly pasture" (Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Ante-Nicene Fathers 7:12). Lactantius’ views on the universality of true religion and his understanding of God being accessible to everyone reveal a tolerance for religious practices other than Christianity. While the Edict of Milan pushed the Roman Empire to embrace Christianity, it did not necessarily exclude alternative faiths.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was another influential theologian who advanced the idea of Freedom of Religion under Christianity. While he is commonly regarded as a figure whose idea of tolerance became stricter over time, interpretations of the reasons for this shift vary. Some justifications view his intentions as policy driven while others argue more along the lines of selfishness and his personal religious values (Rohr 1967, 60). Despite his wavering attitudes on religious tolerance, Augustine is considered a key figure in shaping Western Christianity (O'Donnell 2024). With such importance, his philosophical and theological contributions were highly regarded. Throughout his life, his ideas grew more intolerant as "Augustine sharpened his ecclesiological ideas and developed a theory of religious coercion based on an intentionalist understanding of Christian love" (Tornau 2024). The evolution of Augustine’s theological contributions is evident in a famous "vitriolic debate with the Pelagianist ex-bishop Julian of Aeclanum, who accused Augustine of crypto-Manicheism and of denying free will" (Tornau 2024). This denial of freedom was grounded in Augustine’s interpretation of original sin and divergence from a Christian approach to life, indicating a more assertive agenda as Christianity grew beyond its early years.

References

Canfield, Leon Hardy. The Early Persecutions of the Christians. Reprint, Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 55, no. 2. ATLA Monograph Preservation Program. New York: Columbia University, 1913. Originally published by Harvard University. Digitized May 16, 2006. ISBN 0790541947, 9780790541945.

Christian Tornau, "Augustine of Hippo," in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, Summer 2024 ed., Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2024, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/augustine/.

Janssen, L. F. “‘Superstitio’ and the Persecution of the Christians.” Vigiliae Christianae 33, no. 2 (1979): 131–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1583266.

Lactantius. The Divine Institutes. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, page 12. Accessed July 7, 2024. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.toc.html.

Lactantius, Mort. pers. 16.4 (Ferguson, Everett, ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity: Second Edition. Vol. 1839 of Garland Reference Library of the Humanities. 2nd ed. Reprint. New York: Routledge, 2013), 898.

Luther, Martin. "Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed." In Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, edited by A. J. Holman, 225-273. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1915. Accessed July 9, 2024. https://www.onthewing.org/user/Luther%20-%20Extent%20of%20Secular%20Authority.pdf.

O'Donnell, James. "St. Augustine." Encyclopedia Britannica, April 23, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Augustine.

Plescia, Joseph. “On the Persecution of the Christians in the Roman Empire.” Latomus, vol. 30, no. 1, 1971, pp. 120–32. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41527858.

Rohr, John A. "Religious Toleration in St. Augustine." Journal of Church and State 9, no. 1 (1967): 51–70. Accessed August 1, 2024. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23913378.

Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians: 70-170 CE, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, 13.

Weibe, Melissa. “The Early Struggle: Understanding the Persecution of the Early Christians.” Master’s thesis, Concordia University, 2008. https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/id/eprint/979201/1/MR67303.pdf.
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Behaviorism

2024-08-02T00:37:33Z

Iaz2024:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Behaviorism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Burrhus Frederic Skinner, a notable American psychologist specializing in behaviorism, interpreted freedom as a conditioned misunderstanding. Expression would be classified as individual behavioral responses to environmental stimuli as it concurs with Skinner’s operant conditioning (Cherry 2023). His contribution suggests that behaviors that are rewarded are more likely to occur again and those that are punished will have a reduced likelihood of recurrence. This exists in the context of the behaviorist approach introduced to the field of psychology by John B. Watson. Also known as the father of behaviorism, he claims behaviorism “is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior” (Watson 1913, 158–177). Accordingly, inner thoughts and experiences are disconsidered as independent phenomena and behavior consists of actions that are externally shaped and conditioned. Freedom of expression would thus be understood as a fallacy under behaviorism, due to the idea that humans are inevitably shaped by their environment and not by their determined expression.

A truly free expression, shaped by personal, mental, complex internal influences, is nonexistent in the world of behaviorism as it relates to Skinner. The fundamental ability to express oneself, granted and protected by a governmental institution, is distinguished from the freedom to control how expression is shaped. A behaviorist approach would analyze expression as it relates to the environmental influences that shaped it. Where this approach conflicts with true freedom is the source of expression and not the act of expression itself. Skinner writes, “A person never becomes truly self-reliant. Even though he deals effectively with things, he is necessarily dependent upon those who have taught him to do so” (Skinner [1971] 2024, 24). His conclusion suggests there cannot be an expression that exists independently from a source of control because people exist in environments that are shaped by people and structures in influential positions. Thus, rather than refuting this idea on the grounds of social empowerment, Skinner rejected a nonscientific approach and suggested manipulating the environment to influence people’s actions (Skinner [1971] 2024, 24). Skinner did not propose this as a recommendation for only the future, rather as a societal constant that can be shaped to benefit the world. “He argued that our increasingly detailed knowledge of behavior principles can be used in designing and engineering the environmental conditions needed to produce intentionally designed behaviors” (Baldwin, “Mead and Skinner,” 115). Behaviorism is inherently permissive of expression and does not impede on the common right of freedom of expression. However, its approach is distinguished by the understanding of how free expression can be and is controlled.

Skinner modeled this control, known as operant conditioning, in a chamber commonly known as a skinner box. In this model experiment, the subject is put in a box and is rewarded or punished based on the chosen actions. Skinner experimented with rats and eventually pigeons, but his efforts encouraged a more encompassing perspective wherein humans are the subject and the world is the box. Skinner’s book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, offers further insight into the radical behaviorism that underlines his beliefs. He encouraged psychological research in an effort to provide order to society and shape behaviors, thereby devaluing human agency and the idea of free will. He noted, “Dependence on things is not independence,” to explain why people cannot be considered free agents, because they rely on people and institutions like schools and teachers to learn (Skinner [1971] 2024, 91). Implications on freedom of expression are dependent on whether one adopts this perspective or not. For the behaviorist, especially those like Skinner who are considered radical, freedom of expression may have never existed due to the environment predetermining what is learned. In a 1958 article for Science, Skinner exemplified a practical application of this approach. He wrote, “Teaching spelling is mainly a process of shaping complex forms of behavior” (Skinner 1958, 971). The comprehensive behaviorist approach acknowledges the source and the product of human behavior and does not regard freedom of expression as separate from the scope of control.

While there is criticism within the behaviorist approach which sees flaws in societal structures rooted in lack of control from actors in influential positions, Skinner proposes solutions in his book. “The Skinnerian framework not only suggests sources of such behavior but also provides a rationale for the treatment of deviance” (Bassiouni and Sewell, "Scientific Approaches," 1350). In addressing societal imperfections, Skinner encouraged the production of a technology of behavior that would influence public policy based on behaviorist psychology studies. (Skinner [1971] 2024, 10). He suggests this technology to be useful in preventing “the catsrophe,” as he writes throughout his book. He then lists some catasrophes being “unchecked breeding, the urestrained affleunce which exhausts resources and pollutes the environment, and the imminence of nuclear war” (Skinner [1971] 2024, 208-209). Skinner’s suggested technology aims to understand human behavior to prevent foreseen dangerous outcomes and create an “environment which makes [people] wise and compassionate” (Skinner [1971] 2024, 168). However, critics of Skinner’s contributions argue against the control he suggests due to its totalitarian nature, effectively reducing the accessibility to freedoms. Noam Chomsky, a prominent linguist and activist, wrote an essay, The Case Against B.F. Skinner, in response to B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity, in which he wrote “He is accused of immorality and praised as a spokesman for science and rationality in human affairs” (Chomsky, 1971, 1). The behaviorist approach emphasizes strict adherence to science, while critics may claim that behaviorism neglects important scientific factors due to an exclusive focus on external and observable factors. Freedom of expression, being a field of study that is more easily observed, may be interesting to a behaviorist because its application is seen in people’s behavior.

References

Baldwin, John D. "Mead and Skinner: Agency and Determinism." Behaviorism 16, no. 2 (1988): 109–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41236063.

Bassiouni, M. Cherif, and Alan F. Sewell. "Scientific Approaches to Juvenile Delinquency and Criminality." DePaul Law Review 23, no. 4 (Summer 1974): 1344–1407.

Cherry, Kendra. 2023. “What Is Operant Conditioning?” Verywell Mind. February 24, 2023. https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863.

Chomsky, Noam. n.d. “The Case against B.F. Skinner.” https://www.ehu.eus/HEB/wp-content/uploads/2012/KEPA/The%20Case%20Against%20B.F.%20Skinner.pdf.

Skinner, B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing, 2024.

Skinner, B. F. 1958. “Teaching Machines: From the Experimental Study of Learning Come Devices Which Arrange Optimal Conditions for Self-Instruction.” Science 128, no. 3330 (October): 969–77. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.128.3330.969.

Watson, John B. "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It." Psychological Review 20, no. 2 (1913): 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428.

“What Is Behaviorist Theory? Understanding Its Influence on the Work of a Behavior Analyst - Behavioral Collective.” 2021. June 8, 2021. https://behavioralcollective.com/insights/what-is-behaviorist-theory/#:~:text=Radical%20behaviorism%20is%20.
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Behaviorism

2024-08-02T00:34:50Z

Iaz2024:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Behaviorism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Burrhus Frederic Skinner, a notable American psychologist specializing in behaviorism, interpreted freedom as a conditioned misunderstanding. Expression would be classified as individual behavioral responses to environmental stimuli as it concurs with Skinner’s operant conditioning (Cherry 2023). His contribution suggests that behaviors that are rewarded are more likely to occur again and those that are punished will have a reduced likelihood of recurrence. This exists in the context of the behaviorist approach introduced to the field of psychology by John B. Watson. Also known as the father of behaviorism, he claims behaviorism “is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior” (Watson 1913, 158–177). Accordingly, inner thoughts and experiences are disconsidered as independent phenomena and behavior consists of actions that are externally shaped and conditioned. Freedom of expression would thus be understood as a fallacy under behaviorism, due to the idea that humans are inevitably shaped by their environment and not by their determined expression.

A truly free expression, shaped by personal, mental, complex internal influences, is nonexistent in the world of behaviorism as it relates to Skinner. The fundamental ability to express oneself, granted and protected by a governmental institution, is distinguished from the freedom to control how expression is shaped. A behaviorist approach would analyze expression as it relates to the environmental influences that shaped it. Where this approach conflicts with true freedom is the source of expression and not the act of expression itself. Skinner writes, “A person never becomes truly self-reliant. Even though he deals effectively with things, he is necessarily dependent upon those who have taught him to do so” (Skinner [1971] 2024, 24). His conclusion suggests there cannot be an expression that exists independently from a source of control because people exist in environments that are shaped by people and structures in influential positions. Thus, rather than refuting this idea on the grounds of social empowerment, Skinner rejected a nonscientific approach and suggested manipulating the environment to influence people’s actions (Skinner [1971] 2024, 24). Skinner did not propose this as a recommendation for only the future, rather as a societal constant that can be shaped to benefit the world. “He argued that our increasingly detailed knowledge of behavior principles can be used in designing and engineering the environmental conditions needed to produce intentionally designed behaviors” (Baldwin, “Mead and Skinner,” 115). Behaviorism is inherently permissive of expression and does not impede on the common right of freedom of expression. However, its approach is distinguished by the understanding of how free expression can be and is controlled.

Skinner modeled this control, known as operant conditioning, in a chamber commonly known as a skinner box. In this model experiment, the subject is put in a box and is rewarded or punished based on the chosen actions. Skinner experimented with rats and eventually pigeons, but his efforts encouraged a more encompassing perspective wherein humans are the subject and the world is the box. Skinner’s book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, offers further insight into the radical behaviorism that underlines his beliefs. He encouraged psychological research in an effort to provide order to society and shape behaviors, thereby devaluing human agency and the idea of free will. He noted, “Dependence on things is not independence,” to explain why people cannot be considered free agents, because they rely on people and institutions like schools and teachers to learn (Skinner [1971] 2024, 91). Implications on freedom of expression are dependent on whether one adopts this perspective or not. For the behaviorist, especially those like Skinner who are considered radical, freedom of expression may have never existed due to the environment predetermining what is learned. In a 1958 article for Science, Skinner exemplified a practical application of this approach. He wrote, “Teaching spelling is mainly a process of shaping complex forms of behavior” (Skinner 1958, 971). The comprehensive behaviorist approach acknowledges the source and the product of human behavior and does not regard freedom of expression as separate from the scope of control.

While there is criticism within the behaviorist approach which sees flaws in societal structures rooted in lack of control from actors in influential positions, Skinner proposes solutions in his book. “The Skinnerian framework not only suggests sources of such behavior but also provides a rationale for the treatment of deviance” (Bassiouni and Sewell, "Scientific Approaches," 1350). In addressing societal imperfections, Skinner encouraged the production of a technology of behavior that would influence public policy based on behaviorist psychology studies. (Skinner [1971] 2024, 10). He suggests this technology to be useful in preventing “the catsrophe,” as he writes throughout his book. He then lists some catasrophes being “unchecked breeding, the urestrained affleunce which exhausts resources and pollutes the environment, and the imminence of nuclear war” (Skinner [1971] 2024, 208-209). Skinner’s suggested technology aims to understand human behavior to prevent foreseen dangerous outcomes and create an “environment which makes [people] wise and compassionate” (Skinner [1971] 2024, 168). However, critics of Skinner’s contributions argue against the control he suggests due to its totalitarian nature, effectively reducing the accessibility to freedoms. Noam Chomsky, a prominent linguist and activist, wrote an essay, The Case Against B.F. Skinner, in response to B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity, in which he wrote “He is accused of immorality and praised as a spokesman for science and rationality in human affairs” (Chomsky, 1971, 1). The behaviorist approach emphasizes strict adherence to science, while critics may claim that behaviorism neglects important scientific factors due to an exclusive focus on external and observable factors. Freedom of expression, being a field of study that is more easily observed, may be interesting to a behaviorist because its application is seen in people’s behavior.

References
Baldwin, John D. "Mead and Skinner: Agency and Determinism." Behaviorism 16, no. 2 (1988): 109–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41236063.
Bassiouni, M. Cherif, and Alan F. Sewell. "Scientific Approaches to Juvenile Delinquency and Criminality." DePaul Law Review 23, no. 4 (Summer 1974): 1344–1407.
Cherry, Kendra. 2023. “What Is Operant Conditioning?” Verywell Mind. February 24, 2023. https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863.
Chomsky, Noam. n.d. “The Case against B.F. Skinner.” https://www.ehu.eus/HEB/wp-content/uploads/2012/KEPA/The%20Case%20Against%20B.F.%20Skinner.pdf.
Skinner, B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing, 2024.
Skinner, B. F. 1958. “Teaching Machines: From the Experimental Study of Learning Come Devices Which Arrange Optimal Conditions for Self-Instruction.” Science 128, no. 3330 (October): 969–77. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.128.3330.969.
Watson, John B. "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It." Psychological Review 20, no. 2 (1913): 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428.
“What Is Behaviorist Theory? Understanding Its Influence on the Work of a Behavior Analyst - Behavioral Collective.” 2021. June 8, 2021. https://behavioralcollective.com/insights/what-is-behaviorist-theory/#:~:text=Radical%20behaviorism%20is%20.
}}