This paper will take the position that David Brink’s support for censorship of low-value and hate speech degrades the liberty of liberal democracy and leads to the suppression of minority groups. These statements will be proven by arguing that censorship for the sake of inclusion is counter-intuitive prevents societal progress. Firstly, an outline of Mill’s conception of liberty and free speech will be presented from his work On Liberty, followed by the previously mentioned arguments against David Brink’s article Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, using Mill’s view of liberty and free speech as a framework for critical support.
Firstly, Mill views negative liberty as the foundation for society, individuals are assumed
…show more content…
In other words, paternalism is only morally applicable when the harm principle is satisfied. Mill is explicit in stating that offensiveness does not satisfy the threshold for harm, however if the speech that is uttered provokes dangerous action that would lead to harm, such as starting a riot or causing a panic in crowded place, it does in fact fulfill the harm principle. Mill’s view of free speech does not bar any type of hate speech or falsehoods, rather he defends the all opinions, stating that “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we are sure, stifling it would be evil still.” Mill believes that the no-platforming of any opinion is the denial of possible truths, the silencing of an opinion prevents others from interpreting it and discerning their opinions, and even demonstrably false statements provide opportunities to elucidate truths in contrast to the falsehoods. Consequently, Mill is espousing the view that the act of censorship assumes infallibility of the party that is doing the censoring. Mill surmises that one may be tempted to state that public authority, or the general will, would be legitimated in engaging in censorship because the general will should be propagated as the truth, however the duty of judgement falls upon individuals, not the state, to determine the …show more content…
He posits that hate speech and low-value speech are visceral and do not come from a place of rationality, they undermine the respect necessary for groups to engage in discussion, and therefore discourage participation by the groups targeted by hate speech or low-value speech. The type of government regulation that is being prescribed by Brink would effectively silence any opinions that are deemed racist, sexist, homophobic, religiously offensive, and discriminatory under the banner of low-value speech, as Brink makes the case hate speech is low-value speech, which it will be combined with subsequently. Brink’s definition for low-value speech is repeatedly diagnosed as utterances that “inflicts injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”, according to him they target evoke a visceral response, rather than a thoughtful, deliberative one, however this argument subjects minority opinions to the tyranny of the
Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Freedom of expression can sometimes be abused by saying hateful things, however overall it is positive and beneficial. It allows people to be themselves and have a voice, it promotes thinking and new ideas, it allows for peaceful conflict, it motivates people to make changes, and many other things. As one can see, freedom of expression is one of the main foundations of this country, and is tremendously beneficial to the people in, making Rosenblatt’s argument potent and
The case, R. v. Keegstra, constructs a framework concerning whether the freedom of expression should be upheld in a democratic society, even wh...
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in sile...
...of nations, countries, cities, towns, and individuals can be severely harmed and damaged if there is no control on the information being disbursed through the vast communication devices available. While everyone cites the right to freedom of speech, it is sometimes forgotten about the part that states as long as it doesn’t harm another person is often overlooked.
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
Critics believe that American citizens take advantage of civil liberties supporting limits on freedom of speech. They believe that degradation of humanity is inherent in unregulated speech. For example, according to Delgado and Stefancic, a larger or more authoritative person can use hate speech to physically threaten and intimidate those who are less significant (qtd. in Martin 49). Freedom of speech can also be used to demoralize ethnic and religious minorities. Author Liam Martin, points out that if one wants to state that a minority is inferior, one must prove it scientifically (45-46). Discouraging minorities can lead to retaliation, possibly resulting in crimes or threatening situations. "Then, the response is internalized, as it must be, for talking back will be futile or even dangerous. In fact, many hate crimes have taken place when the victim did just that-spoke back to the aggressor and paid with his or her life" (qtd. in Martin 49). Therefore, critics believe that Americans do not take into account the harm they may cause people and support limits on freedom of speech.
One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).
Gearon, L. (2006). Freedom of expression and human rights: Historical, literary and political contexts. Brighton [u.a.: Sussex Academic.
...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.
" As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion.”. Mill believes that the only time one’s liberty should be limited is when it affects the interests/ the liberties of others around him. Having said that, it is clear what Mill’s stance on the Chinese censorship would be.
Ideas of tolerance have become synonymous with liberal democracy with some going as far as saying that it is “the substantive heart of liberalism” (Hampton. 1989, p.795). Whether or not this be the case opinions regarding the “heart of liberalism” are split, racist and politically extreme parties and ideas have been banned from the majority of Liberal democracies particularly in Western Europe. The United States in comparison does not ban extremist speech arguing that the first amendment can be interpreted to allow all forms of speech (Smith 1978). This is only one of a few of the paradoxes of toleration, it is at heart self-contradictory. Tolerance implies that we have to be tolerant of everything.
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.