Government Limitations In Mills Case Study

However, the concerned three law students in Mills case override the three government limitations at certain times. This is because the issue is more serious to be left in the hand of the public because the three law students attempted to have their voice heard. Thus, if one voice is not heard it disprove freedom of rights of one’s opinion to increase and disregards the others. Due to the reason that they expressed their opinion and were not heard by Maclean’s magazine made it necessary for the government to be involved regardless government limits Mill proposed. This is of importance because the three individuals tried to fix the issue themselves, attempted to handle as a public, and without governmental power involved. Consequently, the intervention without government failed for the three law students and Mill would in this case disregard the limitation of governance to help. Once the government is involved there is greater power of participation of the three voices to be heard. Mill would argue that Maclean’s Magazine to give a opportunity for involvement to bring forth equality to the Muslims community. Hence, Mill would not ask for the removal …show more content…
Firstly, intervention is necessary to allow the three Muslims complaints to rebuttal to defend Muslim community. Secondly, government intervention is not needed because Steyn article does not promote hate because it is just opinion. Also, Maclean’s Magazine has the right to have free speech and has the ability to publish at their own desire. Even when the complaint was heard by Human Rights Commission it was dismissed because the article expressed opinion not hate (Brean). The three law students had an attempt to express their views on The Agenda, yet they just considered to talk about Maclean’s Magazine for not permitting the three law students view. Therefore, the moral comes to show is that one has right to express opinion regardless what other may