1
U2152328
PO201 - Are limits on free speech justified? Discuss with reference to John Stuart Mill.
Liberal societies employ the notion of free speech as a fundamental pillar in protecting
individual rights and liberty. Freedom of speech in the literal sense is recognised as the
unrestricted ability for one to vocalise and express any opinion on any topic. However, most
liberal nations such as the one envisioned by John Stuart Mill recognise that to maintain a
working orderly society, some limits on speech are required within a context of recognised
values. Freedom of speech is an extremely important value as it allows society to be critical
and vocal about the way in which it is governed, i.e., the government. Alexander and Horton
recognise key arguments for why in a democratic society freedom of speech should be
defended. The government is fundamentally a servant to the people within the context of a
liberal society. Thus, should the state have the ability to supress the voices that come from
the people? (Alexander and Horton 1984) Also, to make informed decisions the people
require a great deal of information and thus increased variation of opinion ensures that
society receives contrasting information to make better informed decisions. Nevertheless, it
is also recognised that unlimited speech is not a desirable outcome for liberals as it in some
ways restricts liberalism resulting in a tyranny of the majority outlined by Mill, which lends
itself to suppression of liberal values in its own right (Mill, 1858). Further to this when
discussing the liberalisation of speech, it is important to recognise that the extreme side of
this argument enters Hobbesian territory and his vision of the ‘state of nature’, and that in
this state society is uncivilised and thus in term freedom and liberty naturally get limited
,2
U2152328
(Hobbes, 1651). David Van Mill explains that some limitation on speech must be employed
to protect ‘protocols of basic civility’ (Mill, 2017). Mill’s main theory on the topic consists of
the harm principle which is further developed by philosophers allowing room for the offence
principle, which will aid in evaluating where limitation must be employed throughout this
essay (Mill, 2017). Frederick Schauer makes an important argument when it comes to
discussing the ‘slippery slope’ argument in limiting freedom of speech (Schauer, 1985).
Schauer uses notion of ‘instant’ and ‘danger’ cases to explain his theory on limiting speech.
The instant case refers to a change in the current status quo and he explains that a minor
restriction in the ‘instant’ case might not change much in terms of liberalism in current
society however it leaves society at risk of setting a precedent that in the future’, the danger
case’, can be utilised for tyrannical purposes. A way to avoid this would to be extremely
precise when limiting speech through laws and regulation as to ensure no more action and
restriction than necessary is utilised. This essay will utilise the principles suggested by Mill as
well as other theorists to explain the necessity for limits on free speech, but explain its
justification through understanding that it is not a question of if restrictions should be
imposed but rather where they are utilised and imposed.
The harm principle is a theory presented by Mill to give reason and create a structure as to
how and when Speech may be limited which is explained through, ‘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’ (Mill,1978). However, while Mill uses the notion of
‘harm’ he is not specific in his work as to what he refers to when using the term. Does the
, 3
U2152328
term only refer to harm in a physical sense or does it acknowledge a holistic view on harm
encompassing emotion? This essay will define harm as an invasion of the rights of an
individual as in line with many liberals who are willing to consider limitations on speech
whereby it concerns the rights of others. Fundamentally, Mill is a Liberal theorist thus his
defence of free speech relates to the threats to liberalism that he acknowledged explained
by David Brink as the monarchy and high members of the powerful aristocracy, however as
mentioned before democracies also tend to restrict themselves through tyranny of the
majority (Brink, 2009). Mill explains limiting liberty through, paternalistic factors, moralistic
factors and the harm principle explained in; “
A’s restriction of B ’s liberty is paternalistic if it is done for B’s own benefit.
A’s restriction of B’s liberty is moralistic if it is done to ensure that B acts morally or
not immorally.
A’s restriction of B’s liberty is an application of the harm principle if A restricts B’s
liberty in order to prevent harm to someone other than B.” ( Mill, 1859)
Thus, Mill gives legitimacy to restrict someone’s freedom of speech when the harm principle
applies. This is consistent with the views of many liberals who somewhat reject the notions
of paternalism as an oppressive measure utilised by the aristocracy to justify their actions in
suppressing those less powerful than them in the name of ‘caring’. Further, moralism is
subjective to the status quo and as such restriction of it lends itself to criticism from the
‘Slippery Slope’ argument. To better understand what types of speech cause harm Mill
U2152328
PO201 - Are limits on free speech justified? Discuss with reference to John Stuart Mill.
Liberal societies employ the notion of free speech as a fundamental pillar in protecting
individual rights and liberty. Freedom of speech in the literal sense is recognised as the
unrestricted ability for one to vocalise and express any opinion on any topic. However, most
liberal nations such as the one envisioned by John Stuart Mill recognise that to maintain a
working orderly society, some limits on speech are required within a context of recognised
values. Freedom of speech is an extremely important value as it allows society to be critical
and vocal about the way in which it is governed, i.e., the government. Alexander and Horton
recognise key arguments for why in a democratic society freedom of speech should be
defended. The government is fundamentally a servant to the people within the context of a
liberal society. Thus, should the state have the ability to supress the voices that come from
the people? (Alexander and Horton 1984) Also, to make informed decisions the people
require a great deal of information and thus increased variation of opinion ensures that
society receives contrasting information to make better informed decisions. Nevertheless, it
is also recognised that unlimited speech is not a desirable outcome for liberals as it in some
ways restricts liberalism resulting in a tyranny of the majority outlined by Mill, which lends
itself to suppression of liberal values in its own right (Mill, 1858). Further to this when
discussing the liberalisation of speech, it is important to recognise that the extreme side of
this argument enters Hobbesian territory and his vision of the ‘state of nature’, and that in
this state society is uncivilised and thus in term freedom and liberty naturally get limited
,2
U2152328
(Hobbes, 1651). David Van Mill explains that some limitation on speech must be employed
to protect ‘protocols of basic civility’ (Mill, 2017). Mill’s main theory on the topic consists of
the harm principle which is further developed by philosophers allowing room for the offence
principle, which will aid in evaluating where limitation must be employed throughout this
essay (Mill, 2017). Frederick Schauer makes an important argument when it comes to
discussing the ‘slippery slope’ argument in limiting freedom of speech (Schauer, 1985).
Schauer uses notion of ‘instant’ and ‘danger’ cases to explain his theory on limiting speech.
The instant case refers to a change in the current status quo and he explains that a minor
restriction in the ‘instant’ case might not change much in terms of liberalism in current
society however it leaves society at risk of setting a precedent that in the future’, the danger
case’, can be utilised for tyrannical purposes. A way to avoid this would to be extremely
precise when limiting speech through laws and regulation as to ensure no more action and
restriction than necessary is utilised. This essay will utilise the principles suggested by Mill as
well as other theorists to explain the necessity for limits on free speech, but explain its
justification through understanding that it is not a question of if restrictions should be
imposed but rather where they are utilised and imposed.
The harm principle is a theory presented by Mill to give reason and create a structure as to
how and when Speech may be limited which is explained through, ‘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’ (Mill,1978). However, while Mill uses the notion of
‘harm’ he is not specific in his work as to what he refers to when using the term. Does the
, 3
U2152328
term only refer to harm in a physical sense or does it acknowledge a holistic view on harm
encompassing emotion? This essay will define harm as an invasion of the rights of an
individual as in line with many liberals who are willing to consider limitations on speech
whereby it concerns the rights of others. Fundamentally, Mill is a Liberal theorist thus his
defence of free speech relates to the threats to liberalism that he acknowledged explained
by David Brink as the monarchy and high members of the powerful aristocracy, however as
mentioned before democracies also tend to restrict themselves through tyranny of the
majority (Brink, 2009). Mill explains limiting liberty through, paternalistic factors, moralistic
factors and the harm principle explained in; “
A’s restriction of B ’s liberty is paternalistic if it is done for B’s own benefit.
A’s restriction of B’s liberty is moralistic if it is done to ensure that B acts morally or
not immorally.
A’s restriction of B’s liberty is an application of the harm principle if A restricts B’s
liberty in order to prevent harm to someone other than B.” ( Mill, 1859)
Thus, Mill gives legitimacy to restrict someone’s freedom of speech when the harm principle
applies. This is consistent with the views of many liberals who somewhat reject the notions
of paternalism as an oppressive measure utilised by the aristocracy to justify their actions in
suppressing those less powerful than them in the name of ‘caring’. Further, moralism is
subjective to the status quo and as such restriction of it lends itself to criticism from the
‘Slippery Slope’ argument. To better understand what types of speech cause harm Mill
