ipl-logo

Political Theory: Joel Feinberg And John Stuart Mills

1305 Words6 Pages

Political Theory Essay 1 After the shootings at Charlie Hebdo, there was tremendous sympathy for the victims, but the debate over whether there are any limits to free speech continue. Are there any cases when expression should be limited? Why? In this essay I will argue the view that there are circumstances where expression should be limited, while drawing on the views of Joel Feinberg and John Stuart Mills to broaden and strengthen my argument. I will attempt to justify that John Stuart Mills approach to the argument of Freedom of Speech is the most valid, and the only instance where expression should be limited is where it causes an immediate harm or violation to the rights of others. I believe that expression should be limited when it causes harm to others or violates their rights. This view coincides with J.S Mill’s “Harm Principle”. I do not believe that hate speech should be prohibited as it merely …show more content…

Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high

Show More
Related
968 Words | 4 Pages

Yes, we are allowed freedom of speech, but should there be a limit on this freedom? We can only justify these points based on the Bible. Ephesians 4:29 states this point quite well. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” Ephesians shows that we may use the law of freedom of speech only when what proceeds out of our mouth is edifying and useful to the situation and to those around us.

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

For example being on a plane and yelling bomb or being in a crowded room and yelling fire when there is no bomb or fire. Yelling those things will cause people to panic and can cause problems and might injure people. Everything else should be protected under the first amendment. A quote from Benjamin Franklin, “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought

Read More
103 Words | 1 Pages

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

Read More
259 Words | 2 Pages

Another limitation that does not protect citizens under the First Amendment is using fighting words that disturb the peace. In April 1940, Walter Chaplinsky was in downtown in Rochester, New Hampshire handing out literature and speaking publicly about religion. As Chaplinsky continued to talk, the crowd continued to grow, blocking the streets and disturbing the area. The public around him became upset with Chaplinsky as he began to denounce religion as “racket”.

Read More
921 Words | 4 Pages

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo had published multiple cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. On January 7th 2015, in response to the cartoons, two men claiming to be members of Al Qaeda barged into the magazines office and opened fire, killing 11 people. To Brooks, public reaction to the attack was nothing but hypocritical. Those killed became martyrs for freedom of expression. But if a magazine had published a satirical cartoon of the same sort here in America, they might not have been killed for it, but instead they would not be looked upon in the same light as those who lost their lives in Paris.

Read More
1626 Words | 7 Pages

Throughout the ages, the pursuit of freedom has established our social, political, and legal environments, serving as the main force behind society’s development. In a democracy, the right to free speech, the press, and religion serve as foundations for open debate and as defenses against despotism. Not only have these liberties created the growth of civil rights, but they are also a necessity that enables people to voice their opinions and critically evaluate the acts of the government. The fundamental right to freedom of speech is recognized as one of the primary liberties for the operation of a free and open society. The value of free speech cannot be overstated since it guarantees that all opinions, no matter how well-liked or disliked,

Read More
707 Words | 3 Pages

Hate speech includes, but is not limited to, gesture, conduct, writing, or verbal communication that might encourage discriminatory behavior to a protected individual or group of individuals. Many universities are committed to creating an atmosphere of equal opportunity that harbors talent, creativity and ingenuity. Speech codes are not only justifiable, but are also essential to campuses because they do not allow the use of hate speech. One who is for the use of speech codes on campuses may argue alongside Lawrence in saying that it is unacceptable to use hate speech in any scenario or environment because it suppresses the voices of minorities. Lawrence presents the idea that “the subordinate victims of fighting words are silenced by their relatively powerless position in society.”

Read More
1204 Words | 5 Pages

The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.

Read More
1197 Words | 5 Pages

Although the government has the authority to curtail free speech rights, and punish speech that incites violence and harm, the First Amendment provides far reaching boundaries for the advocacy of political

Read More
590 Words | 3 Pages

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing than one person than he, if he has the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill, 1859, p.14). In the essay On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, written in 1859. Mill discusses his thoughts on the issue of freedom of speech and expresses his argument throughout the entirety of the essay. His argument states that society should be able to express themselves through speech without the threat of the Government or the tyranny of the majority interrupting the speaker`s liberty. He claims that as long as what an individual is saying does not cause direct harm on others an individual should be able to speak their beliefs freely without any consequences.

Read More
501 Words | 3 Pages

These forms of speech aren’t protected by the First Amendment because they can help to incite people

Read More
1561 Words | 7 Pages

Are limitations needed? If so, where to draw the line? Where to draw the line between advocacy and public nuisance; Government censorship and moral responsibility, freedom of expression and civic responsibility? It is suggested that there is a place for holding these tensions in society to counter the unchecked development of (extreme) events such as those which generated the WWII Jewish persecution and censorship in Germany by the Nazis resulting in Kristallnacht (Touro College libraries, 2014), or the takeover of public debate through populism and the danger of its decent into some form of Fascism.

Read More
1152 Words | 5 Pages

The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate

Read More
570 Words | 3 Pages

In Chapter Two; Of Liberty of Thoughts and Discussion, Mill expresses the freedom of opinion. He states that, “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation” (On Liberty 602). Mill argues against silencing the opinions of others.

Read More
2363 Words | 10 Pages

1.0 INTRODUCTION In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), freedom of speech falls under the Article 19 which is the freedom of opinion and expression. It protects one’s freedom ‘to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (The United Nations, 1948). Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adds that the freedom of expression could be ‘either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice’. Besides being an individual’s fundamental liberty of expression, Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Russell W. Galloway (1991) states that free speech is the ‘matrix of all other freedoms’.

Read More

More about Political Theory: Joel Feinberg And John Stuart Mills

Related Topics

Open Document