Should Freedom of Opinion or Speech Ever Be Restricted - Term Paper Example

Should Freedom of Opinion or Speech Ever be Restricted? The issue of freedom of speech is a very complex one. In the current century, the issue of who has the right to express opinions goes to the very heart of security, and the multicultural society. Should dangerous opinion, such as that of terrorists, or those who support it, be heard by others in the society? Are opinions dangerous, or only those who act on those opinions in a violent manner? Freedom of speech is of course part of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and as such is a part of the American national identity. However, even in the early years, the 1798 Sedition Act restricted this freedom; during the two World Wars people were also imprisoned: the famous “Clear and Present Danger”1 case, for example, involved someone imprisoned for advocating opposition to the draft (Through legal means), a sentence which the Supreme Court upheld. Current fears about dissident opinions have meant that individual freedoms have been placed second to the safety of the population as a whole: however, many people have expressed fears that it has also meant an end to freedom of speech for those opposed to the country’s government, libertarians, egalitarians, and many in the anti-capitalism movement. In discussing whether the freedom of speech is an expendable freedom, to be handed out and then withdrawn like a favour, this article will consider the position of John Stuart Mill and his essay on liberty, as well as analysis of this position, and then more current thinkers, such as Chomsky and Scanlon, before considering all the sides, and then forming a conclusion. This will be done in the knowledge that freedom of speech has made all of these works available to the author, something which must be acknowledged before looking at the pros and cons of allowing citizens to express any opinion, no matter how extreme or unpopular. John Stuart Mill In his essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that freedom of expression is an essential right of the liberated human being. As he stated that the government has not right to interfere with a person so long as s/he is not causing harm to others, so it follows that a restriction upon the ability to express opinions is also a curb on a person’s liberty, no matter what the rest of the people feel about this opinion: 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, of he had the power, would be Justified in silencing mankind.2 The lone dissenting voice cannot be silenced, if only for the benefit of the rest of mankind. Mill considers that any opinion, no matter how wrong, peculiar, or unwelcome it may be, is worth something: Silencing the expression of an opinion, is that it is robbing the Human race; posterity as well as the existing generations; those Who dissent from the opinion still more than those who hold it3. Mills suggests there are several reasons why society should not inhibit the expression of opinions, not least because they might turn out to be valid: “The opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true”4. The argument here is that no opinion can be held to be utterly true; things which we dismiss as absurd were held dear by our forefathers, and “It is certain that many opinions now general will be rejected by future ages”5. No opinion has been held for the entire length of human existence; in fact, many of our so-called ‘truths’, such as liberty and equality, are only a few hundred years old. To silence any differences of opinion is to place your own views upon a pedestal which they do not deserve. In addition to this factor, Mill states that it is necessary to test all new ideas and theories against opposing ideas, in order to prove their value: If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned Mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as they now do6 Therefore, all ideas are necessary, as they serve as a test to the strongest and best ideas, which cannot be undervalued. Even the erroneous opinion has worth in this position: Though the silenced opinion may be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a potion of the truth…It is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.7 In other words, these erroneous opinions in fact hold the key to the greater truths which mankind continues to search for. Suppressing these opinion only serves to stifle the little bit of truth that they contain, and therefore diminishes the chance that we have to discover them. Mill also suggests that any sort of impositions upon the freedom of speech is in effect depriving them of their rights. The people cannot make a proper and informed choice without knowing all possibilities, a notion which will be discussed further later on. The very notion that society can decide for the individual what he should see and hear is the problem, and the thing which threatens the individual’s liberty, and that no matter how necessary this repression seems, society has no business imposing it upon anyone. “ There would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity than on religion. It is however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either”8. In sum then, Mill’s position is that restricting freedom of speech is an unjustified use of authority. It deprives the population of a useful tool for debate, which leaves them without options or the opportunity to test their beliefs, Mill describes it as “robbing”, and in a way it deprives the population. Furthermore, a silenced idea may turn out to be justified, or may at least be partially true. Complete freedom of speech is necessary for the growth and autonomy of the population, and any notions of protecting them by suppressing ideas is in fact doing the exact opposite. Other’s Ideas Iain Hampsher-Monk analyses Mill’s views on censorship as part of a study into his entire body of work. Hampsher-Monk notes that, while Mill’s views on liberty may seem to make him the opponent of any censorship laws, in fact: Mill did not intend - nor did even his critics charge him with Advocating – such wide freedoms as others have since Derived from the principle.9 Although it is hard to defend such a position, since Mill is clear that the law has no business interfering with the individual concerning speech. Hampsher-Monk suggests that Mill should have considered more the idea that it is necessary to prevent people from harming others through ideas and opinions. As Scanlon points out, however, freedom of expression also involves that which “Moves others to act”10, no matter what the consequences of the act might be. It might therefore be necessary to repress some expression, in order to prevent this speech from causing acts which harm others; incitement to direct injury or damage, for example. The difficulty lies in the position of the individual in relation to society. As Joseph Raz observes, A harm to a person may consist not only of depriving him of options, but in frustrating his pursuit of the projects and relationships he has set upon.11 Raz emphasises the importance of personal choice, which he calls ‘options’. He describes the importance of freedom of speech as Protecting collective goods, i.e., preserving the character of The community as an open society12 Like Mill, Raz considers the exchange of ideas and opinions as beneficial to the whole society. He point is that social rights serve as a collective wealth; freedom of speech, for example, established the democracy of the country. Importance of Freedom of Speech As shown, freedom of speech does not just benefit the individual who expresses his opinion; it also serves the community as a whole. However, these ideas are limited to general notions of freedoms. When people harm others through expressions of speech, there are some who might argue that it is necessary to curtail that expression. Ideas which are unpalatable to the norm, such as anti-Semitism, seem like a good case for restrictions on freedoms of speech. Most followers of Mills, however, are opposed to this on precisely these grounds. Obviously there is no benefit to society from granting freedom of speech only to sentiments which are generally acceptable (“ The defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas on approves of.”13). Both Mills and Chomsky are clear about what sentiments should be protected under freedom of speech: those ideas which are the most unpopular and unpalatable. “ It is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression much be most vigorously defended” 14(Chomsky) and “Unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for anyone”15(Mill); in other words, we cannot consider ourselves defenders of free speech until we can tolerate what is most repugnant to us; tolerance of acceptable ideas is no kind of tolerance at all. Simply because the general population does not agree with the ideas expressed is no excuse for silencing them. On the contrary, it is these ideas who need the most support and encouragement, because without the crucible of peer opinion, these ideas cannot be challenged and assessed, except by repression. Clearly, defense of freedom of speech is more than just an intellectual exercise when it comes to those who support violent action. Society has to learn the difference between the expression of ideas which is a human right, and the performing of acts of violence. One speaker cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of others; but robbing him of that right to speech has implications for the entire society. It is difficult for those in a situation to judge, but the granting of civil liberties affects the community, and the deprivation of those liberties affects that same community in equal amounts. Therefore, should freedom of opinion or speech ever be restricted, it is a loss of the community goods; a much more serious threat to the stability of society than opinions, no matter how distasteful to the population. Bibliography Chomsky, N. (1980) “Some elementary comments on the rights of freedom of expression” at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky.articles.8010-free-expression.html (2003) Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky Mitchell, P, and Schoeffel, J (eds). Vintage, Random House. Hampsher-Monk, Iain. (1992) A History of Modern Political Thought Blackwells, Cambridge Mass. Mill, John Stuart (1960) Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government A.D. Lindsay (Ed) Everyman’s Library, New York. Raz, Joseph (1988) The Morality of Freedom Clarendon Press, Oxford. Scanlon, T. “A theory of freedom of expression” Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol 1, no 2, 204-226. Read More