The issue of free speech and liberty has continued to dominate the public domain for many years now. In many arguments, free speech is the fundamental right in a democratic society. However, threats to free speech still exist even in some of the established democracies in which people cannot make certain remarks and opinions. The opponents of free speech view it as a harmful ideology which people can use to make derogatory statements and incite violence. The British philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill is famous for his strong stand for the human rights to free speech, noting that it is necessary for social and intellectual progress. Objecting censorship, Mill argues that those seeking to ban free speech do so only as long as it is against prevailing opinion. As applied today in the democratic society and universities, Mill's view on free speech has continued to raise more debate. Free speech is a fundamental human right and a determinant for an established democracy, which is essential for social and intellectual progress in the society.
Free speech remains a fundamental right in an established democracy. Mill’s philosophy of free speech advocates for a pluralistic society that does not view matters of dissenting ideology, religion, and morality as a threat to be suppressed (Cohen-Almagor, 2017). Instead, free speech seeks to grant people confidence in morality, allowing everyone to express their ideas and opinions and to have the liberty of conscience. The philosopher holds that the unrestricted free flow of information and ideas is more useful than harm, thus desirable in a democratic society. While other communities embrace uniformity and consensus in thinking, Mill's philosophy is against this, and instead advocates for plurality in opinion. People need to have space where they can speak their minds, irrespective of whether the ideas conflict with the preexisting ones. According to Mill, it constitutes an authentic democracy and is crucial for social progress.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The opponents of free speech have been holding a view that censorship is necessary to eliminate hate speech and derogatory statements. However, Mill's philosophy is entirely against censorship, using the principles of rights and justice as well as utility. The philosophy addresses the view of "fair and temperate" speech, where laws prohibit people from making certain statements (Riley, 2015). The proponents of these laws argue that the purpose is not to ban free speech but to banish immoderate discussion merely. However, the fallacy in this is that the law never seeks to punish any kind of intemperate speech, unless people use it against an existing opinion. Then it means that people seeking to have censorship have no intention of regulating uncivil discussion. Instead, the purpose is to ban anyone who presents a contradictory opinion to what already exists. The tends to reduce human beings to think in a single predetermined way and to label people of different views in the society as racists and bigots. Mill's philosophy views this as a way to restrict human thoughts and eliminate autonomy in society.
Human beings are not infallible nor all-knowing, and the opinion they despise for as different may either be right or wrong. Mill notes that even of the views censors held were to be accurate, and people would simply believe in them without being able to explain or understand the reason. Plurality in opinions promotes healthy discussion on various issues leading to most acceptable conclusions. This concept of free speech goes past legal constraints. It stands as a "philosophy of life, a fundamental way of life for the citizens in a pluralistic, diverse community” (Ingram, 2019). The individual sphere which guides human liberty is based on free, voluntary, and undeceived consent, which is what forms human liberty in a democratic society.
The pursuit of truth remains the primary utilitarian justification for the liberty of expression, according to Mill's philosophy. The opinions that get suppressed by censorship may possess some great truth, which then amounts to the denial of the truth. Allowing opposing views to confront preexisting ideas is the only way to affirm their truth. The liberty to contradict and disapprove an existing opinion is the best way to justify the truth behind these views (Halliday & McCabe, 2018). Hence, it calls for the promotion of freedom of speech and the plurality of opinions in society. People should indeed expose their views for criticism when they are wrong. People who are opposed to criticism of their opinions do not themselves understand what they believe. Diversity in ideas provides a ground for critique and justification of the truth. According to Mill's philosophy, it is essential to realize social and intellectual progress.
The proponents for censorship use hate speech as an argument to limit free speech in society. Mill's harm principle tolerates the legal action and prosecution for anyone who directly uses racially discriminative ad violent statements towards a specific group. However, certain indirect remarks can only constitute hate speech based on the disposition of the listener. Even though the proponents of censorship argues that it seeks to protect a particular group of people from discrimination and derogatory remarks, it is sarcastic that this applies selectively (Cohen-Almagor, 2017). The aim of censorship is not to protect certain groups from harm, but to restrict people from presenting dissenting opinions on the preexisting ones. It is a way to set the human mind into a single thinking mode and expecting people to agree with individual opinions without objection. It not only works at the expense of liberty and logic but also hinders social and intellectual progress in the society.
Mill's philosophy of freedom of speech applies today in many societies and public institutions. The debate on the freedom of expression in universities remains a significant area where this philosophy applies. Public universities have been creating laws that restrict certain views and promote the politically correct language. Persons mainly does this with the view of protecting certain groups from any harm and discrimination. The proponents of free speech view these policies as a limitation of human freedom and the reduction of human beings into single thinking objects. Censorship, which is mainly conducted by government institutions, is viewed as a way of the government to restrict dissenting opinions and criticism. These laws exist in dictatorial regimes with limited democratic space, and should not be evident in established democracies.
In conclusion, free speech remains a fundamental human right and liberty. It is the only way to ensure the social and intellectual progress and creation of a diversified and pluralist society. As noted by Mill in his philosophy, censorship is a way to limit human thinking and prevent people from giving opinions that are contradicting to the preexisting ones. It is a way to hide the truth in certain beliefs people hold and eliminate logical thinking. Free speech is necessary not only as a right but also as a way of enriching society with a range of ideas. It allows for criticism of false opinions, which then leads to the pluralism of thoughts. Every established democracy should promote free speech and enhance the diversity of opinions as a way of promoting social and intellectual progress.
Questions:
Who was the contributor of this philosophy?
What are the main arguments made in philosophy?
What is the personal and social relevance of free speech philosophy today?
References
Cohen-Almagor, R. (2017). JS Mill's boundaries of freedom of expression: a critique. Philosophy , 92 (4), 565-596.
Halliday, D., & McCabe, H. (2018). John Stuart Mill on free speech. The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology , 71-87.
Ingram, P. G. (2019). Censorship and free speech: some philosophical bearings . Routledge.
Riley, J. (2015). John Stuart Mill: On Liberty. In Central Works of Philosophy v3 (pp. 139-170). Routledge.
