The Significance of Free Speech and Individual Liberties - Essay Example

Mill’s Principle of Liberty Mill’s harm principle is one of the most influential aspects of this philosopher and this is mainly because it describes those freedoms that all individuals in society have over themselves. It holds that actions by individuals can only be limited to what can prevent harm to other individuals but not necessarily to themselves. This theory is articulated in On Liberty, where Mill argues that power over individuals in society should only be exercised to ensure that these individuals do not cause harm to others in their society (Dripps, 1998). On Liberty can be considered to be among the most influential books dealing with the liberal principle of John Mill and it has as its main theme at the beginning a distinction of the threats to liberty both from the past as well as the new ones. According to Mill, the greatest threat to liberty that existed in the past consisted of all the authority in the society being in the hands of few individuals, either in the form of monarchy or aristocracy (Mill, 1859). He believes that although there could be less worried concerning the restrictions to personal liberties by benevolent monarchs, it is a fact that the personal freedoms of individuals in the society tended to be suppressed under monarchs that were not accountable to their people. Instead, the latter monarchs would put their own interests first before those of their people, thus ensuring that they worked towards the suppression of the liberties enjoyed their people in pursuit of their personal goals. The traditional threats to liberty, represented by the rule of authoritarian monarchs, were threats which had to be addressed through the intervention of philosophical radicals who would institute democratic reforms for the benefit of the populace. According to Mill, the traditional threats to liberty are not the only ones that members of the society should be worried about and this is mainly because even in democratic states, there are threats to the personal liberties its citizens (Jacobson, 2000). However, in this case, instead of the tyranny of individuals being dominant in the society, there is the tyranny of the majority, so that the minority has little option but to follow the lead of the majority or suffer dire consequences. As a result of these views, Mill sets out to develop his principles concerning how the threats to liberties can be neutralized in any society, notwithstanding whether it is democratic or not. Mill states that the main idea behind the control of individuals within the society through the denial of their liberties either by the imposition of legal penalties or by moral coercion by the opinion of other members of the society, is done because of the need for self-protection by the society (Gray, 1991). It is because of the need for self-protection that the society, either through individuals, or collectively, in certain instances sees it fit to interfere with the liberties of its members. The only reason which can justify the arbitrary use of power within the society is to ensure that no individual causes harm to others, and this power can be enforced over individuals even if it is against their will. However, if this power is used against individuals in order to prevent them from harming themselves, its use cannot in any way be justified. It is not right for this power to be used on an individual who wishes to cause harm to himself because to do so would mean that he would not be able to gratify himself. Thus, individuals within the society should not be restricted from doing what makes them happy if only what they do does not cause harm to others. To infringe on this right cannot in any way be justified by any authority in the society since to do so would mean that individuals will be denied their personal liberties, which are a basic right for all members of the society. If others in the society do not like what the individual does to himself for self-gratification, they are allowed to reason or persuade him to stop, but they cannot compel him to do as they wish, to conform to their principles. In order to justify the interference in individual liberties, the conduct of this interference must be designed to ensure that it produces evil in the person who causes it. As a result, according to Mill, it is necessary to recognize the fact that the conduct of an individual which requires social approval is where it concerns others in the society, but that which involves an individual personally; he has the absolute right to do as he pleases (Jacobson, 2000). This is because the individual has sovereignty over his body and mind and no other person in the society can control either of these against his will. When one considers Mill’s arguments above, one comes to the conclusion that he is mainly concerned about the articulation of those principles that are applied to liberty in various contexts. He seems to be mainly concerned with the aspects where the state uses its authority, either through civil or criminal laws, to ensure that some conducts by individuals are restricted and if they do not comply with these laws, they are punished. In addition, he is also concerned with the principle where the society collectively threatens to condemn and ostracize its individual members to ensure that they conform to its norms, resulting in these individuals’ liberties being limited. However, the main argument made by Mill is that the state limits the personal liberties of those under its authority through the implementation of legal prohibitions to these liberties (Thomas, 1985). It should be noted that there seems to be some tension between Mill’s dedication to a categorical approach to basic liberties and his need to justify utilitarianism, since the latter promotes the principle that the good done by individuals is their principal duty before any other. While in some circumstances, it is a fact that actions might either be considered good or bad, according to the utilitarian principle, the morality of specific actions is completely dependent on their consequences. In contrast, the traditions of individual liberties state that duty comes before and is completely independent of the good, and as a consequence, it is not constantly the duty of individuals to promote the good. There are certain circumstances where an individual has the duty to do an act which is bad, and there are other circumstances where it is wrong to do an act which is good. There is recognition by those who support Mill’s views that there are at times moral constraints in pursuing the good and these normally are in the form of those rules that have been set either allowing or denying individuals the right to commit certain acts, and these do not normally consider the consequences of these acts (Jacobson, 2000). A case for the recognized conflict between categorical rules and utility is the apprehension that exists between utility and rights. Through the use of this stance, one comes to the conclusion that the rights of individuals are a special part of categorical rules and that these rights, such as the freedom of harm, are defined as side consequences that occur in the pursuit of good outcomes. In his defence of basic individual liberties, Mill discusses the freedom of expression and it is his belief that there is universal agreement concerning the significance of free speech. It is his belief that once the purpose of free speech is understood, this understanding will be used by individuals to ensure that this freedom is used as a means of defending individual liberties (Mill, 1869). It can therefore be seen that Mill’s defence of expressive freedoms is not just done for the purpose of these liberties for their own sake, but also as a basis upon which his liberal principles are built. Mill is concerned with the institution of censorship, whose aim is to contain opinions which are considered to be either false or immoral. While he shows some concern about the practice of censorship by various actors in the society, whether individuals or states, his main focus is based on how censorship is imposed by the state as a means of restricting liberty. According to Mill, there are several reasons why free speech should be maintained and censorship opposed and these include: an opinion which is censored can be true; even though it might be factually false an opinion that is censored might contain part of the truth; that even though a censored opinion is completely false, it might prevent true opinions from being believed; and finally, as a belief, an opinion which remains unopposed ends up losing its meaning (Skorupski, 1998). These reasons can be categorized into two main groups with the first two dealing with the truth-tracking defence of expressive freedoms, and the last two dealing with an appeal for a unique type of value that is supposed to be gained through free discussion. One would state that the Mill’s first two claims embody the belief that freedom of expression is an aspect which is instrumentally valuable since it is the most reliable means through which true belief can be produced. It can be suggested that while Mill seems to believe that true belief is a valuable aspects of life, it is extremely difficult to perceive how true belief can be active value. This is mainly because it is the actions, plans and reasoning of individuals which lead to their success and these are normally not based on true belief. The fact that the most pertinent means of the promotion of true belief, as advocated by Mill, is by believing everything, and this is an aspect of life which cannot be viable in the modern world (Palmer, 2001). This is because if everyone were to believe everything that they were told, it would mean that there would be the development of plenty of falsehoods in the process, defeating the purpose of true belief. The more realistic goal to pursue would be the promotion of ideal which strike a balance between true belief and false belief as this would be the most viable way to defend the freedom of expression. Thus, the best way to ensure that there is proof of truth is to promote the idea of less censorship and more freedom of expression as this is the only means through which the truth can be realized and prevail. It should be noted that Mill’s assumption that the censor must undertake his own dependability is mistaken and this is mainly because of the fact that it is not required in the active justification of the freedom of expression (Hampsher-Monk, 1993). The person in charge of censorship must not hold onto the belief that he is infallible, and should instead ensure that he admits that he might make mistakes during his censorship. In this way, he can insist that he has made his decisions as best as he can, using the available proof about the truth of the matter, and this allows for an opening which will ensure that discussion concerning the matter in dispute is kept open so that a lasting solution can be found. While the above rationale might be used as justification for the freedom of expression as opposed to a procedure of censorship where censorship is conducted on beliefs that are either doubtful or offensive, it cannot be used to justify this freedom in relation to traditional forms of censorship. If the rationale above were used in relation to traditional forms of censorship, it would be extremely difficult to retain the freedom of expression which Mill holds so dear (Lorenzo, 2009). In the modern society, where the freedom of expression is one of its most basic requirements, censorship of any kind, based on the above criteria, would be considered to be an infringement on individual freedoms. In the politics of the modern world, where the freedom of individuals to freely express their beliefs is paramount, any attempt at censorship would mean that there would be a stifling of democratic rights as well. In addition, the development of an integrated world due to globalization has made it paramount that individual freedoms be protected since without such protection, some of the political systems that have been developed, whether authoritarian or democratic, would come to an end. To some extent, this corresponds to Mill’s belief that the presence of freedoms of thought and expression are the main defence for the individual liberties of members of the society. In line with the paramount political beliefs of the modern world, Mill states that a good life is where an individual is able to his higher capabilities, where the individual is able to create and implement their own personal plans in life. In order for liberty to prevail, there is the need for there to be both positive and negative conditions and one of the positive conditions which are required is education which enables individuals to develop deliberative competence (Palmer, 2001). In addition, it provides individuals with an environment within which they can be able to make adequate assessments of the various periods of history and ensure that they discover the social possibilities that might enhance their freedoms. Moreover, education ensures that all individuals in the society are able to skills related to assessment and reasoning as this ensures that they have the intellectual curiosity that enables them to develop the modesty and open-mindedness which can help them to better govern themselves. Among the negative conditions which are necessary for individuals to better govern themselves are the diverse liberties and thoughts where individuals are left to choose what they would like and pursue them with deliberateness. This provides individuals with the opportunity to develop alternatives to their plans as well as the deliberate options which are available for them to enhance their freedom of speech, association and press. The ability of individuals to put their freedoms into practice, as propagated by Mill, is the reality of the modern world and they are still relevant in its politics (Skorupski, 1998). As seen above, it is Mill’s belief that the greatest threat to liberty that exists is as a result of all the authority in the society being in the hands of few individuals, either in the form of monarchy or aristocracy. In addition, Mill states that the main idea behind the control of individuals within the society through the denial of their liberties either by the imposition of legal penalties or by moral coercion by other members of the society, is because of the need for the society to protect itself and its institutions. As has been concluded above, Mill seems to be mainly concerned about the articulation of those principles that are applied to liberty in various contexts. In Mill’s defence of basic individual liberties, he discusses the freedom of expression and propagates his belief that there is universal agreement concerning the significance of free speech. Finally, it is Mill’s belief that once the purpose of free speech is understood, this understanding will be used by individuals to ensure that this freedom is used as a means of defending individual liberties. References Dripps, D.A. 1998, "The liberal critique of the harm principle", Criminal Justice Ethics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 3-18. Gray, J. 1991, On Liberty and Other Essays. London: Oxford University Press. p.146 Hampsher-Monk, I. 1993, A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. New York: Wiley and Blackwell. p.343 Jacobson, D. 2000, "Mill on Liberty, speech, and the free society", Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 276-309. Lorenzo, D.J. 2009, "Mills On liberty: a critical guide", Choice, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 389. Mill, J.S. 1869, The Subjection of Women. London: Longman, Roberts & Green. p.17 Mill, J.S.1859, On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green. p.14 – 15. Palmer, D.E. 2001, "John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control / Mills Moral, Political and Legal Philosophy", Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 308-311. Skorupski, J. 1998, The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press p.255 Thomas, W. 1985, Mill. London: Oxford University Press. p.56 Read More