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

  • Freedom of Speech: Exploring Clear and Present Danger

    251 Words  | 1 Pages

    Clear and Danger was evaluated in the First Amendment and guarantees the right of Freedom of Speech. I have two scenarios regarding clear and danger, the first scenario is Debs v United States. In this case Debs v United States, Debs felt that socialism is the answer; however, Deb’s was prosecuted for the remarks that he made. In addition, the speech that Deb gave wasn’t as harsh as made by others, for example, George McGovern made a remark about the Viet Nam War during his 1972 presidential bid which was very harsh. This process was done by using its weak form of the clear-and-present-danger test and Deb’s ended up being sentenced to a ten year sentence. In this case Deb’s couldn’t speak everything on his mind that he wanted which was a violation

    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

  • The Importance of Rhetoric and Discussion of Freedom of Speech

    1396 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the essays, “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected” by Jonathan Rauch and “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims” by Charles R. Lawrence III, the writers express their beliefs on the topic of freedom of speech and prejudice speech; particularly racist. As far as any benefits of prejudice speech go, the two writers thoroughly disagree. Lawrence believes that there are no benefits of prejudice speech and it should not be included in what America’s “freedom of speech” entails, because of its effect on minorities as he writes, “Whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the importance of maintaining societal tolerance for all unpopular speech, we are asking blacks and other subordinated groups to bear the burden for the good of all” (Lawrence 624.) Rauch disagrees as he suggests, “…the realistic question is how to make the best of prejudice, not how to eradicate it” (Rauch 1) as he thinks prejudice has benefits that effect not only our freedom of speech in general, but other things such as science and our ability “to challenge orthodoxy, think imaginatively, [and] experiment boldly” (Rauch 2.) Although the two writers disagree on the benefits, they do agree on some negative connotations of prejudice speech. Lawrence believes that there is real harm that can be inflicted upon a person when a victim of prejudice speech, of which is “…far from trivial” (Lawrence 623.) Rauch similarly agrees as he views the prejudice speech to be effecting to the inner body and the soul as he notes, “All of these things are noted preverbally and assessed by the gut” and that “The fear engendered by these words is real” (Rauch 6.) However, Rauc...

    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

  • John Stuart Mill Social Coercion

    696 Words  | 2 Pages

    This interpretation intends to recognize, that there are parts of someone’s life that shouldn’t be controlled by society, as this part only affects the individual. Human liberty is comprised of three different domains, which make up the part of a person’s life that is controlled by them. Mill goes on to describe the domains and their importance to freedom. First, he addresses in the domain of consciousness, which he refers to the liberty of thought and expression (Mill, Liberty). According to Mill, silencing and individual’s opinion is wrong because it robs “the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation.” He believes it’s dangerous to suppress differing opinions because it’s possible these opinions may have some truth to them. If we allow ourselves to suppress every differing opinion, we keep ourselves from knowing the truth and neglect their contribution to humankind’s development. For this reason, Mill rejects the public opinion’s tendency to secure on a single belief because they become a routine activity causing difficulty for people to consider new beliefs. In contrast, Mill also defends the protection of suppressing opinions that are false. If we suppress false opinions, the truth of a received opinion is accepted as a belief rather than the truth. This becomes harmful for the individual, because if we fail to educate

    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

  • 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

  • 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's Harm Principle

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary, but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work, Of Liberty, in 1859. He states, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals.

    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

  • The Importance Of Restrictions On Freedom Of Speech

    1917 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Bill of Rights has gained existence since December 15, 1791. Being supported mainly by anti-federalists, the Bill of Rights upheld what was needed to protect individual liberty. From the ratification we have our first ten amendments. The most important and used today is the first amendment. The amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting… petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment is very powerful but cannot be overly abused. Over time the freedom of speech has been constricted. There are many court cases that display the limitation of free speech. Environmental factors and certain materials are not covered in free speech. To understand our rights and know how and when our rights are limited, we must

    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

  • 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