Critical Evaluation of Mill’s Arguments Defending Freedom of Thought and Expression

Download PDF

This essay explores John Stuart Mills argument on freedom of thought and expression. It begins with a general discussion of freedom in relation to speech and then examines the best defenses of free speech based on the harm principle. This acts as a guide for the digressions that will be observed further in the essay. The essay aims to evaluate the harm principle and assess the view that speech can be limited because it causes offense rather than direct physical harm. I will then finish the essay with both an examination of moralistic and paternalistic reasons against protecting speech, and a reassessment of the harm principle.

Introduction

The matter of free speech is one of the most debated issues in liberal societies. If liberty of expression is not valued highly, which has often been the case, there is no problem; freedom of expression is overlooked in favor of other values. It becomes a volatile issues when it is highly valued because only then do the limitations put upon it become controversial. According to (van Mill, 2018), the first thing to note in a rational discussion of freedom of speech is that it will always have to be limited. He adds that every society puts some element of limits when it comes to freedom of speech because it usually takes place within a context of competing values. Thus, Stanley Fish is right when he states that there is no thing such as free speech (in regards to unlimited speech). He adds that free speech is simply a term for us to focus our attention on a particular form of human interaction and not confuse it with speech never being limited. Fish (1994: 102) says “free speech is not an independent value but a political prize”, but there has been no case where society has lived without any form of limitation of speech, however one does not have to fully agree with this. Haworth (1998), makes a similar conclusion when he says that freedom of speech is something we have and not something we own.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Alexander and Horton (1984) note that speech encapsulates many different activities: speaking writing, acting, advertising, threats, slander and so on. They add that sometimes certain forms of speech carry more weigh than others and therefore require different levels of protection. For instance, the freedom to criticize a government is generally considered to be more important than that of an artist or a blogger offending his/her audience. Similarly, if two acts of speech were to clash (someone yelling during a political speech) a decision to prioritize one over the other would have to be made, which shows that there can be no unlimited right to free speech. Alexander and Horton further claim that defending speech on democratic grounds has many parts. One of these claims is that the public needs a lot of information in order to make an informed decision. The other is that the government is considered a servant of the public therefore it should not be allowed to censor them.

Such arguments show that the main reasons for justifying free speech allows us to exercise the important value of democracy. Whatever reasons that we chose to protect our speech can also be used to show how some speech is not special. When speech is defended because it promotes autonomy, we no longer have grounds for protecting speech that undermines this value (van Mill, 2018). Thus, if our defense of speech is that crucial to a well functioning democracy, then we have no reason to defend speech that undermines this goal.

Speech is important because we are social beings and need to talk to each other. However, speech has to be limited for the sake of maintaining order. This is because if we all speak at once it will merge and become an incoherent loud noise. Without some rules and procedures, we cannot have a valid conversation as it needs to be limited by protocols of basic civility.

The Harm Principle and Free Speech

I will concentrate on arguably the most famous liberal defense approach of free speech that Mill offered and focus on his arguments and use them as a springboard for a general discussion of free speech. Mill makes a very bold statement at the beginning of Chapter two of On Liberty by saying:

“If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. ” (1978, 15)

Thus is quite a strong defense of free speech; Mill states that any doctrine should be allowed to be expressed no matter how immoral it seems to everyone else.

“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 silencing mankind.” (1978, 16)

Mill says that this form of liberty should exist in every subject matter so that we achieve an absolute form of freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, speculative or practical, moral, scientific or theological. (1978, 11) He argues that the fullest liberty of expression should push our arguments to its logical limits rather than the limits of being socially embarrassed. He further adds that such liberty of expression is needed for the dignity of persons.

These a very powerful claims that vouch for freedom of speech, however , as I noted above, Mill also suggest that we have some rules in the way we conduct speech. The limitation that he places on free expression was one very simple principle now known as the harm principle which 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. (1978, 9)

There is a great deal of chatter about what exactly Mill meant when he referred to harm; for the purpose of this essay we will look at it in the view that an action directly affect and invade the rights of a person.

It is difficult to support the claim that most speech causes harm to the rights of others because the limits of free speech are very narrow. This view can be observed during the first two chapters of On Liberty and it is a good starting point because it is hard to imagine a more liberal position of free speech. Liberals are willing to contemplate limiting speech if it can show that it does indeed invade the rights of others.

If we therefore accept Mills argument, we need to ask ourselves what types of speech cause harm. Once we find this out then we have found the appropriate limits to free expression. For example, Mill uses this as a reference to corn dealers . He claims that it is acceptable to say that corn dealers starve the poor in certain scenarios. However, it is not acceptable to make this claim to an angry mob outside the corn dealers house.

According to Daniel Jacobson (2000), Mill makes a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate harm and it is one when speech can make a direct violation of ones rights that it can be limited. For instance, the corn dealer may suffer financial strain as a result to the accusations that he is starving the poor. The fact that Mill chooses not to count the accusations as a form of illegitimate harm shows that he applies the harm principle sparingly.

Other causes in which the harm principle apply include blackmail, advertising rumors about commercial products, advertising dangerous products to children (e.g cigarettes and alcohol) and many others. In most of these cases, it is possible to see the how rights can be violated and harm can be caused.

Mill’s Harm Principle and Hate Speech

Many liberal democracies have limitations on hate speech, but it is debatable whether they can be justified by Mills harm principle. For instance, one would have to show how their rights have been violated by such speech. It is interesting to understand what exactly happens when hate speech does not advocate violence or terrorism since such speech is captured by the harm principle. According to the Public Order Act 1986 in the U.K, “A person is guilty of an offense if he …displays any sign, writing or any other visible representation which is abusive, threatening or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.”

In the United States, Mill’s principle fits like a glove because it is an outlier when it comes to other liberal democracies. The most famous example of this was the Nazi protest that happened in Skokie, Illinois. This would definitely not be allowed in other liberal democracies. In addition, the intention of this march was not to evoke political speech at all, but rather just to walk in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood while wearing swastika uniforms. The Skokie community were rightly offended and outraged but the thing is they were never harmed. There was no plan to use violence or to damage property.

However, the argument for prohibiting the Skokie march was that it would incite a riot and out the marchers in danger. The problem with this argument is that the focus moves from the people who were harmed during the march to the potential harm the speakers or marchers could face. Thus banning a speech for the above reasons totally undermines the right to free speech in the first place. If we turn to the subjects of the march, it is fair to note that could have been psychologically harmed. Therefore, it seems that Mills argument does not allow for state intervention cases like this. Mills principle is only applicable when we can show direct harm to rights.

Jeremy Waldron (2012) has attempted to suggest that the harm principle can be defined less stringently. He attempts to show us the impact visual hate speech has on us through signs and poster displayed in public. In his book, he stresses that hate speech compromises the dignity of those targeted. Therefore, here he frames this for us to think whether attacking someones dignity really counts as harm. Dignity is subjective as it can for example, be bruised by colleagues which bruises your ego but does not harm you in any way. He finds that perhaps it is only when the attack on dignity matches the same level of threats and physical abuse that it counts as a reason for limiting speech.

Conclusion

Thus we have seen that there are to forms of response to the harm principle. The first one is that it is too narrow and the other is that it is too broad. With examples like the Skokie march, we have observed how easy it is to manipulate Mills principle in regards the parties that were harmed.

Waldron (2012) has also illustrated the difference between being physically harmed through visual signs and posters and having ones dignity bruised. Therefore this essay suggests that Mills principle is to vague as there are new forms of looking at speech in society.

References

  1. Jacobson, D., 1995. “Freedom of Speech Acts: A Response to Langton,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24(1): 64–79. –––, 2000. “Mill on Liberty, Speech, and the Free Society,” in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29(3): 276–309.
  2. Mill, J.S., 1978. On Liberty, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
  3. van Mill, D., 2017. Free Speech and the State: An Unprincipled Approach, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  4. Waldron, J., 2012. The Harm in Hate Speech, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.