How Useful Is Harm Principle in Helping Us Define the Limits of Free Speech - Coursework Example

What is the Harm principle? How useful is it in helping us define the limits of free speech? Introduction: The nineteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mill published in 1859 his philosophical work “On Liberty”. In this work, John Stuart Mill sets out what has turned out to be a famous liberty limiting principle, which is known as “the Harm Principle”. Among the several liberty limiting principles, perhaps the Harm Principle is the most permissive. The Harm Principle: Quoting from the book On Liberty, the Harm Principle of John Stuart Mill reads “...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”. (Myers, 1999). Put in a nutshell the Harm Principle can be taken as the liberty for an individual to act in a manner that makes the individual happy, so long as these actions do not cause harm to another individual, and that society and the state may act in a coercive manner against the individual only if harm to others can be prevented. (Holtug, 2002). Free Speech: In a liberal society the issue of free speech has remained a controversial issue. When the liberty of expression is not valued in a society, then free speech is hardly an issue, as free speech can be curtailed giving precedence to any of the competing values. The controversy arises only when freedom of speech is of high value in a society. For in that case any limitation to free speech becomes contentious. There has been hardly any society in which free speech has nit been interfered with in some manner or the other. John Mill in his On Liberty points out that in any society there are tugs and pulls between the competing demands of liberty and authority and there cannot be one without the other. The concept of pure unadulterated free speech in any society therefore remains an illusion. Free speech thus becomes a value that is subject to the other values in society. Free speech also needs to be differentiated from freedom of action. In a society we are free to speak as we like and in this differ from freedom of action. Authorities can restrict actions, if they so desire it by preventing the individuals from the action. Authorities can restrict the availability of highly powered automobiles, should they decide against individuals driving it on the streets. In comparison the authorities have no way to make it impossible for anyone to express what they want. Thus freedom of speech is different, as the authorities can only impose a punishment after the action and not before it The concept of freedom of speech is better laid down by considering that the threat of a sanction makes an individual less free for expression, then without the threat of this sanction, as the threat makes it more difficult or costly to exercise the freedom of speech. There are two forms in which these sanctions come into play. In the first way, which has greater impact, punishment is imposed by the authorities in the form of financial penalty or imprisonment. The second sanction is in the form of through social approbation of ridicule and morale outrage. Freedom of speech considered in this manner then turns out to be that an individual is free to express what he likes, but the authorities and society have the capability to make this expression of freedom a costly endeavour. Thus freedom of speech is impacted on by the perceptions of the authorities and the society in which the individual lives. The Harm Principle implies that an individual is free to act in a manner that makes the individual happy, as long as this expression of happiness does not cause harm to another. Thus there exists a connection between freedom of speech of an individual and the harm principle and this interaction leads to a perception of freedom of speech viewed from the eyes of the Harm Principle (Freedom of Speech). The Harm Principle and Freedom of Speech: John Stuart Mill in On Liberty defends the freedom of speech in very explicit terms. In his view any doctrine should be allowed to be spread in spite of the objection that any individual raises. Even of only one individual were to stand against the opinion of the whole world, this single individual has the right of expression of the individual’s opinion and there would be no justification for the use of any power to silence this opinion. Thus freedom of speech according to John Stuart Mill requires that there be “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological”. It appears that there should be no constraints on this freedom of expression of opinion and sentiment. There is a constraint and the Harm Principle provides the constraint. This absolute freedom is subject to only one constrain according to the Harm principle and it is that in the expression of this absolute freedom no harm so come upon any other individual. So the Harm Principle provides the limitations to the freedom of speech and suggests the rules of conduct to regulate the actions and words of individuals in a society. The defining factor in the freedom of speech and any restriction to it is s therefore the aspect of harm that it could cause. An understanding of the meaning of harm is then necessary to understand how it helps in defining freedom of speech. There is a lot of speculation and controversy over what John Stuart Mill exactly meant by harm in his Harm Principle. However there is clear indication that one of the limiting factors on freedom of speech considered by John Stuart Mill and the harm Principle was invasion of the rights of others in the expression freedom of speech. There may be arguments that in most cases the expression of freedom of speech hardly invades the rights of others. The issue at hand is not to argue the point, but to understand the defining factors of the Harm Principle on freedom of speech, and in that freedom of speech needs to be limited to an expression such that it does not impinge or invade the rights of another individual. The second limiting factor on free speech by the Harm Principle can be found in example provided by Stuart Mill with regard to the speech to corn dealers. If the opinion that corn dealers starve poor people were to be expressed in the print media, then the issue of harm would not arise, but if the same opinion were to be expressed on front of a furious and uncontrollable mob in front of a corn dealer’s home, then the issue of harm arises. This is because the mob is likely to cause physical harm to the corn dealer, his family and home. This example suggests that the harm principle becomes a limiting factor for free expression, when the motive behind the free expression is to cause harm to another individual or a group of individuals. An example of this in present times is the practice of hate speeches (Freedom of Speech). Hate speeches use strong discriminatory language to insult or group segments of population of a society in the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or any other form of group membership. Hate speeches reflect the expression of discriminatory attitudes, like racial discrimination, that have existed for long periods of time and hate speeches have known to have caused many an ugly and violent incident causing harm to several people. There are some who claim that freedom of expression is a fundamental right and such offensive speeches are among the prices paid in the protection of constitutional rights. From the perspective of the harm principle and the harm or the potential for harm that such speeches have, there needs to be a restriction on such expression. (Brink, 2002). The third limiting factor as a result of the Harm Principle is the printing of material that can harm or has the potential to harm individuals in society. The most classic example of this is pornography. Pornography through the depiction of violent sexual use of women portrays a degraded perspective of women and has the potential to endanger women and cause them harm. There is evidence to suggest there is an elevated potential for men to commit violent acts against women sue to pornography. This potential for harm that is inherent in pornography or such printed material calls for restrictions under the Harm Principle. Thus the Harm Principle is useful to us in defining the limits to free expression of speech through the concept that such free expression should not cause or have the potential to cause harm to other individuals in society. The three limits that the Harm Principle suggests as limits to free speech is that such free expression of speech should not impinge on or invade the rights of others, should not be used as a means to instigate harm against others and should not increase the potential for enhanced risk for danger to any segment of society (Freedom of Speech). Conclusion: The Harm Principle of John Stuart Mill promotes the free expression of speech within the limits that it does not cause harm to another individual or group of individuals in society. Through this concept of free speech and harm, the Harm Principle provides a means to defining the limits to which the free expression of speech should be permitted in society. Literary References Brink, D. O. (2002). MILLIAN PRINCIPLES, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, AND HATE SPEECH. Legal Theory, 7, 119-157. Freedom of Speech. 2002. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from, STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY. Web Site: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ Holtug, N. (2002). The Harm Principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 5(4), 357-389. Myers, W.T. (1999). The Harm Principle. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from Web Site: http://davidhildebrand.org/teaching/handouts/mill.php Read More