Whether speech is acceptable or not becomes subjective. Furthermore, they suggest we cannot reasonably predict what kinds of speech will cause offence. Some don’t believe offence is socially or psychologically harmful. This leads people to claim citizens do not have the right to be offensive or insulting. They believe the speech that causes ‘indirect’ harms should also be restricted. ![]() ![]() They believe some speech can be emotionally damaging, socially marginalising, and even descend into hate speech. Others think the harm principle is too narrow in definition. Mill said “all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility”.Īccepting the limits of our own knowledge means allowing others to speak their mind – even if we don’t like what they’ve got to say.Īs Noam Chomsky said, “If you’re in favour of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise”.įree speech advocates tend to limit restrictions on speech to ‘direct’ harms like violence or defamation. If we silence dissenting views, it assumes we already have the right opinion. In either case, free speech will improve society. Second, if the majority are right, they’ll be more confident of their position if they’ve successfully argued for it. First, the majority who think something is immoral might be wrong. By allowing people to voice their views, even those we find immoral, society gives itself the best chance of learning what’s “true”. He thought we should be governed by laws leading to the best long-term outcomes. Mill’s support for free speech is related to his consequentialist views. He thought the only speech we should forbid is the kind that causes direct harm to other people. This belief stems from Mill’s harm principle, which states we should be free to act unless we’re harming someone else. Mill believed you should face consequences for remarks like these. If you say so in front of an angry mob of recently laid off workers who also happen to be outside an immigrant resource centre, you might cause violence. You would usually be free to say, “Immigrants are stealing our jobs”. ![]() What comes after that? This is where the discussion on what the exceptions and boundaries to free speech are.Įven John Stuart Mill, who is so influential on this topic we need to discuss his ideas at length, thought free speech has limits. Many will state, “I believe in free speech except…”. Since most philosophers agree there is no such thing as absolute free speech, the debate largely focuses on why we should restrict what people say. The consequences of some kinds of speech can make people feel less confident in speaking their mind at all. Most people focus on punishment by the state but social disapproval or protest can also have a chilling effect on free speech. Freedom of speech refers to people’s ability to say what they want without punishment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |