More handpicked essays just for you.
What is mill's conception of freedom
John stuart mill on freedom of speech
John stuart mill on freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This essay considers the extent to which the U.S. should be tolerant of what can be considered damaging speech. For example, I think people should be able to have unlimited opinions with no judgments. I wonder if people are going to stop judging others by their personal experience. Mill argues that society should be able to express their thoughts in a correct manner. He writes, "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 6 ). This quote means that a human being should have a certain limit to prevent harm to another human being (Harm principle). For example, I tend to believe that my manager harms others by cutting down their hours weekly if the employee calls into work if something harmful happens to them. Therefore, Mill’s point is that the concept speech is that we shouldn’t harm someone if we’re going to harm them. …show more content…
He writes, "Early impressions are bad to wash out." (Plato 50: e) This means someone having an opinion towards someone who don’t met their standards. For example, people prefer screaming type of music while some country listeners can’t stand that ‘horrible’ music and assume that the person who listens to that type of music isn’t a normal human being. So, some people in society have a horrible personality that makes it much harsher for them to judge easily on other people’s opinion in society. So The point is that Plato
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
Peter, Sagal. “Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” 25 March. 2013. PSB. PBS.com 14 Nov.
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “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, if he had the power, would be justified in sile...
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.
Living in the United States we enjoy many wonderful freedoms and liberties. Even though most of these freedoms seem innate to our lives, most have been earned though sacrifice and hard work. Out of all of our rights, freedom of speech is perhaps our most cherished, and one of the most controversial. Hate speech is one of the prices we all endure to ensure our speech stays free. But with hate speeches becoming increasingly common, many wonder if it is too great of a price to pay, or one that we should have to pay at all.
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
Freedom of speech is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
The civil liberties that the American people have are inalienable rights. The most important of these is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of speech is not entirely protected; using hurtful, false, or damaging speech is not allowed. But how can the American government control something as basic as speech? There are laws against libel and slander but how are they perpetrated? This essay will explain how the court cases and laws have evolved and been clarified throughout America’s history up to present day.
My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary, but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work, Of Liberty, in 1859. He states, “That 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals.
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...
Chapter two of Mill’s On Liberty discusses the freedom of speech. Mill ultimately declares that a person is free to express his/her opinion as long as it does not cause physical harm to an individual’s person or possessions. This opinion can be “correct” or “wrong” and/or it can cause emotional harm; as long as Mill’s former harm principle is not violated, a person can have unlimited free speech. Mill explains that there is no possible way for one to know for certain that an opinion is true or false, only that one can work towards a more reasonable and logical opinion. Certainty means little if many people are certain that their differing opinions are true, and many opinions thought to be true have later been proven to be false such as slavery being accepted to it being inhumane. His strongest argument for this claim is that to suppress an opinion, one must be certain that it is incorrect and that the suppressor is infallible.