Freedom Of Speech: The Consequences Of Freedom Of Speech

1235 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Universal declaration of human rights charter

We, as a society, have too much freedom of speech Jim C. Hines once said “Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.” But what is freedom of speech? How can it be defined? Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one 's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. This "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. This is clearly stated in article 19 of the pledge “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold …show more content…

Expressing one’s opinion allowed others to either discover that what they believed to be true was actually false, or that it would help solidify one’s opinion to be true. Mill argued that the more we know, the better off we are as a society. Over time, good ideas will become successful, and bad ideas will fail. This sounds like a pretty good idea at first, but then on second thought, should speech be regulated? What happens when freedom of speech harm’s others? This comes as a result of the society of today, the world we live in, where speech is free and opinions uncontrolled. It must be said that free speech is a human right, however it comes at a price, and that price is …show more content…

Is it every okay to inflict personal harm because it is “for the good of society”? While some forms of freedom of speech cause society to develop as a whole and acknowledge truths, other forms can be detrimental towards individuals. Mill addresses hate speech in On Liberty, which he refers to as harm principle. This principle, Mill claims, is the the only exception that restricts Freedom of Speech. However, when this topic was briefly reviewed in lecture on September 20, 2011, under the topic “Should harmful ideas be suppressed?” it was said that Mill’s theories claim: who decides what is harmful, and that harm itself should be up for debate. Because the topic of personal harm is debated, some forms of hate speech may be considered acceptable. Perhaps, certain forms may be allowed as long as they are not physically detrimental, however, mental harm still

Show More
Related

  • Affirmative Action Case Study

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Symbolic Speech Should Be Protected

    2507 Words  | 6 Pages

    1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:

    Read More

  • Public Education Revealed In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    762 Words  | 2 Pages

    In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.

    Read More

  • Mill on toleration

    1086 Words  | 3 Pages

    To understand Mill’s argument for toleration and why it entails no objective assessment, it is very important to distinguish between the applications of one’s personal beliefs. For instance, Mill argues that there should be no objection to a person’s individual belief and opinion (freedom of conscience), yet he believes there are certain limits to how a person can act on those beliefs. These limits are established by the Harm Principle. Mill professes his belief in autonomy except when a person proves to be placing others in danger with their actions; he asserts that "no one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions." Mill does not believe it is possible to make objective assessments of people’s beliefs and ways of life because beliefs do not have the potential to cause harm as actions do; every human being is the only one to feel his own body and know his own mind intimately and directly. Also, everyone ...

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The First Amendment

    227 Words  | 1 Pages

    The first amendment is the one that defends the liberty of speech. “Because democracy depends on an open political process and politics is basically talk, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are considered critical,” (pg. 119). It is defended, but freedom of all speech is not guaranteed. The United States Supreme Court has identified many categories of speech that are eliminated from the freedom. It has also acknowledged that government may implement limits of speech. Examples of prohibited speech are to make or allocate material that is indecent, to encourage potentially harmful action, to allow students to print out articles that would dissent the administration in a school newspaper, and for students to promote the illegal use of

    Read More

  • The Importance Of The Freedom Of Speech?

    1244 Words  | 3 Pages

    The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.

    Read More

  • Benefits Of Social Coercion

    913 Words  | 2 Pages

    The goal of life is the development of your abilities in accordance to your personality, which require freedom. The four benefits of freedom of speech include, the majority opinion may be incorrect and without freedom of speech there may never be a reform, we may learn new truths by arguing false views, uncontested beliefs do not equal knowledge, and uncontested beliefs lose all meaning and positive effects on your behavior. Mill’s argument defending why it is important for people to have freedom states that every person is different from one another, and people need to be able to find out what makes them happy through experimental action and not by being coerced by society or the government. What works best for some people, may not be the best option for

    Read More

  • On Liberty

    1081 Words  | 3 Pages

    For Mill, liberty is defined by, "the nature and limits of the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." Mill's stance is that society can step in only when the action of the individual causes harm to others. Interference for any other reason is unwarranted and only hinders the development of society as a whole. When these liberties are preserved the end result is freedom, and true freedom, according to Mill, is pursuing one's own good in which ever way they deem fit, so long as it doesn't bring harm to others. And here in lies the problem, It is human nature to believe that you are right and the other is wrong. This concept, which seems to be hard wired into all of us, leads to the disapproval, which leads to anger, which in turn leads to suppression. This is the one thing that must be avoided. Across history there are examples of government, or society, stifling the voice of opposition. Though we may think we are right, that doesn't give us the right to keep others from expressing their own opinions and ideas.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Social Coercion

    696 Words  | 2 Pages

    Mill believed that social coercion was dangerous to the liberty of individuals because it forced them to conform to public opinions. Conforming to common opinions deprived the individual of intellectual development because people would live their lives based on the beliefs of others and not their own. This supports his rejection of social conformity because denying an individual the liberty to their own opinions and behavior is denying them from pursuing happiness. This idea led to his understanding that a person’s freedom and happiness depended on limiting the power of the state and society. For Mill, interference of one’s liberty is justified only if it causes harms to others. This idea is introduced as “the harm principle,” which intends to explain when the interference of an individual’s liberty to opinions, associations, or actions is accepted. It’s unacceptable to use the interest of an individual’s own good, as a reason to interfere with their freedom. Instead, Mill argued that the use power over an individual was useful because it serves a greater good. He introduces utilitarianism through his argument that, authorizing the use of power to prevent harm to others serves their best

    Read More

  • Conflicting Visions of Freedom in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government

    1283 Words  | 3 Pages

    In chapter two labeled as “Liberty of Thought and Discussion”, Mill includes two separate arguments in his writing. His first argument focuses on the assumption that suppressed opinions could be true for all we know; this argument takes place on pages 16-17. Man must be open to criticism as silencing a person’s opinion harms mankind. Suppose the silenced opinion turns out to be true; this inflicts harm on mankind as humanity has denied the opportunity to exchange falsehood for truth. This particular argument is aimed at those who effectively silence/challenge opinions; they assume they are infallible. Beliefs such as these, shared beliefs if you will, cause people to believe they are never wrong. An example of this involves those who no longer believe that the world is flat; this is a disowned belief that was once believed by many.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mills On Liberty Analysis

    654 Words  | 2 Pages

    In On Liberty by John Stuart Mills, he presents four arguments regarding freedom of expression. According to Mills, we should encourage free speech and discussion, even though it may oppose a belief you deem to be true. Essentially, when you open up to other opinions, Mills believes you will end up closer to the truth. Instead of just accepting something as true because you are told, Mills argues that accepting both sides will make you understand why your side is true or false. Mills is persuasive in all four of his claims because as history would show, accepting both sides of an argument is how society improves.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    He also states that if you are causing harm to yourself, the government shall not involve themselves. Different forms of harm are applicable, such as physical harm, property damage, and emotional harm. Mill also explains that harm, in whatever form to others, can be the result of an action or the result of inaction. Both of these are a violation of the harm principle and the government has the right to step in; it does not matter whether harm was caused by the result of your action or inaction to the situation. The harm principle’s purpose is to be able to only let government interfere with human society when one is causing harm to another, therefore limiting government control....

    Read More

  • Individual Freedom In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    1589 Words  | 4 Pages

    John Stuart Mill says we all have a right to individual freedom, which gives us the freedom to express our thoughts and opinions without getting punished for it, as long as our opinions don’t interfere with

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill On Liberty Chapter 2 Analysis

    592 Words  | 2 Pages

    Chapter two of Mill’s On Liberty discusses the freedom of speech. Mill ultimately declares that a person is free to express his/her opinion as long as it does not cause physical harm to an individual’s person or possessions. This opinion can be “correct” or “wrong” and/or it can cause emotional harm; as long as Mill’s former harm principle is not violated, a person can have unlimited free speech. Mill explains that there is no possible way for one to know for certain that an opinion is true or false, only that one can work towards a more reasonable and logical opinion. Certainty means little if many people are certain that their differing opinions are true, and many opinions thought to be true have later been proven to be false such as slavery being accepted to it being inhumane. His strongest argument for this claim is that to suppress an opinion, one must be certain that it is incorrect and that the suppressor is infallible.

    Read More

  • Law And Morality Essay

    1124 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...r people would recommend, and it should never be curtailed by social pressures. In summary, then, Mill emphasized that individual citizens are responsible for themselves, their thoughts and feelings, and their own tastes and pursuits, while society is properly concerned only with social interests. In particular, the state is justified in limiting or controlling the conduct of individuals only when doing so is the only way to prevent them from doing harm to others by violating their rights. Based on Mill’s view and where he drew the line between private and public is that the society should not endeavor to limit persons drinking for example, but rightly prosecutes individual for harming others while drunk. But if the conduct the person chose clearly results in the harm just to that one person, the government has no business in even trying to suppress that behavior.

    Read More

More about Freedom Of Speech: The Consequences Of Freedom Of Speech

Open Document