On Liberty Speech Analysis

In order to uphold the integrity of our democracy, constitution and higher education standards, there must be an effort to preserve free speech on college campuses. However, in equal measure as illustrated in the First Amendment, students should also be protected from hate speech and provided an equal chance of receiving a safe education. Perhaps it is beneficial to also consider however, that a ‘safe’ education should not be misinterpreted as an entirely un-offensive one. In order to assist in the political discussion and recommended courses of action regarding free speech on college campus, political philosophers’ John Stuart Mill and John Rawls texts’ will be referred to and analyzed in this essay.

Convincing an audience of 133.4 million is a daunting task, especially when they must be convinced to join a war less than thirty years after World War I. On January 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the State of the Union Address that began his third term as president. This speech, broadcast across the United States on the radio, sparked the idea to join World War II even before Pearl Harbor was attacked. In this speech, he fully supports the English against the attack of the dictators trying to extinguish democracy across the world. He proposes the four freedoms that America is invested in protecting around the world: freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in any way, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. In his speech, “The Four Freedoms,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt inspires nationalism and creates fear in his audience to convince them to join the war ravaging through Europe through many forms of metaphor and repetition.

In John Stuart Mill’s second chapter in On Liberty, he discusses the liberty of thought and discussion, and more importantly, describes the importance of dissenting opinion. Mill describes that the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race.” (Mill 614). He argues, “to refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty.” (Mill 615). It is important to notice the distinction between the certainty of the public and absolute certainty. Mill absolutely rejects the idea that truths can be accepted without hearing dissenting opinion. As he says,

Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.

In chapter two of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill stresses the importance of free speech. In the chapter, Mill lays out several arguments for why it is always beneficial for people of the minority opinion to voice their opinions. He also believes that free speech is justified because humans can never know if the majority opinion is truly correct. It is clear that Mill’s writing on free speech is an application of Socratic wisdom mainly because of his emphasis on debate, and his acknowledgement of the limitation of human knowledge. I personally believe that Mill took freedom of speech too far in On Liberty, and will explain my claim in light of the events that occurred in Charlottesville last summer.

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “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 then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

John Stuart Mill’s explanation of the harm principle is not as useful as once believed. Although the harm principle does in fact have some logic, it fails to set clear and concise borders regarding what denotes allowable hate speech. The harm principle essentially states that all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. However, speech that causes a definable harm must be censored. For example, merely offensive speech is allowed; however, the context of the offensive speech in question is important in understanding when to apply Mill’s harm principle. The principle has some major flaws, as Mill does not take into consideration the numerous factors that must be examined before deciding whether or not to apply the principle, such as

King’s view of equality also goes hand in hand with those of which Mill puts in perspective as he believed that society should treat diversity with respect. As King protests and talks about extremists acting out for what they believe in, we see how he is influenced by Mill in which they share the belief that those acts are acceptable when a person’s behavior, in this is case racism, harms people. Mill links liberty to the ability to progress and avoid social stagnation as King when he writes. As Mill believes that one should be able to say what they believe in and not silenced, King writes. Mill addresses the issue of suppressing opinions that may be true, for example King’s opinions, and that those who are not able to listen to different opinion

Firstly, Mill believes that individual liberty is instrumental in the attainment of truth. No one can claim an infallibility of knowledge or a definite truth. Falsehoods are often sprinkled with specks of truth; and truth may exists as half-truths held by different people, and it is only through controversy that the truth in the parts can be unified into a larger canvas of the ultimate truth. If one's actions were to be censored completely, society would lose those specks of truth amongst the falsehoods, which would be disadvantageous to society.

First, Mill pointed out that everyone has their own judgments and no one has the right to decide an issue for all people. The liberty of an opinion is often up for debate because we are all confident in our own rightness, even though that confidence is not justified. “They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” (Mill, II.3). Mill pointed out that silencing a potentially true idea hurts society because it is shielded from that possible truth. You never can

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.

Inhibition of one's liberty, such as their liberty of conscience (i.e. freedom of speech), is unjust by Millian principles, unless the person's use of deliberation is to voice hate speech. So what is hate speech? Hate speech is directed towards a member of a group, or the group as a whole, that vilifies on the basis of the subject's beliefs. In comparison to discriminatory speech, hate speech does not invoke mere offense, but in most cases is traumatic, and severely impair one’s deliberative capacities, or their mental faculties (judgment, moral preference, intuition, etc…). Liberties have been established to protect our deliberative abilities, as these are conducive to achieving happiness, which to Mill is the individual's primary goal. So why should we regulate hate speech? Although it is important to allow people's freedom of expression, as this is conducive to promoting one's individuality, hate speech can stigmatize one's character, and for this reason hate speech is not always morally, or legally permissible. To better understand hate speech's importance, I will describe Mill's argument in favor of prohibiting hate speech, following this I will object to Mill's rejection of hate speech, finally, I will show why hate speech should be regulated, and why allowing it is dangerous to humans, and society as a whole. Freedom of expression is imperative for improving one’s character, but not all forms of opinions', such as hate speech, should have full freedom to be

Speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is regarded as hateful. It has the potential to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group of people. In Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, Mill makes the claim that essentially all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. This claim holds its validity as long as no harm is done to an individual. Here, I will show that low value speech fails to engage deliberative views that underlie central first amendment fundamental liberties. Subsequently, I will support these claims by comparing the aspects of hate speech to low value speech. Lastly, I advocate for the prohibition against the use of hate speech in a university setting.

Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which

Artists across music genres are at the forefront of new protest songs in response to the rise of President Donald J. Trump and his words in the media. One political track, titled “Land of the Free” by Jo-Vaughn Virginie Scott, speaks to society through a bouncy beat in contrast to its blunt, politically-charged lyrics. Brooklyn based rapper Jo-Vaughn Virginie Scott, otherwise known as Joey Bada$$, released his single “Land of the Free” on January 20, 2017, the day of President Trump’s inauguration. According to Scott, “Land of the Free” was inspired by African-American civil rights leaders such as Marcus Garvey, Dr. Umar Johnson, and Malcolm X (Scott, 2017, Land of the Free). In the song, Scott discusses the racism and prejudice today towards minority groups, especially African-Americans. He also touches on how former President Barack Obama’s presidency was not enough to cause big enough change on the inequality in America. The message in the track, along with the correlating album, “All-Amerikkkan Bada$$”, challenges Americans to speak up and “start a new coalition against corrupt politicians” (Scott, 2017, Land of the Free). Using the cluster analysis method, the song’s word choice is accurately analyzed since clustering the words gives the lyrics a fresh perspective on the political meaning, and it helps evaluate Scott’s motive for wanting change. Scott critiques the political indifference America has towards the ongoing issue of inequality using the key terms free, just,