John Stuart Mill's Model Of Speech Analysis

Great Essays
This paper will endeavor to apply John Stuart Mill’s model of free speech to a situation brought to the forefront in an episode of TVO’s The Agenda, titled What is Wrong with Mark Steyn? The episode explores the issue of Maclean’s magazine refusing to publish a response to a series of articles by Steyn that were being viewed as hateful, as well as potentially harmful, to Muslim people in Canada. It will be argued that Mill would advocate for Maclean’s to publish a response to Steyn’s hateful speech because, if not challenged and clarified by opposing opinion, such speech could lead to direct harm of Canada’s Muslim population. However, while this paper will generally agree with Mill’s likely position in regards to the free speech issues raised …show more content…
However, that declaration is preceded by section 1 which states “[The Charter] guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (1982). These two passages are laid out in non-chronological order to emphasize the caveat imposed by the Charter; while freedom of speech is important to the Canadian democratic society, the government will intervene in some circumstances. The Criminal Code of Canada (1985) dedicates sections 318 and 319 to instances in which the government will intercede in freedom of speech as follows: Advocating genocide, Public incitement of hatred, Willful incitement of hatred. Thus, if speech is hateful, and likely to harm an individual or group, it is illegal under current Canadian …show more content…
In Mill’s ideal utilitarian liberal democracy, where the state takes his harm principle and tyranny of the majority threat into consideration, surely the state would have cause to pursue legal remedy to Mark Steyn’s speech. To that end, Canadian laws are theoretically sufficient where they apply to the limits of speech (though, in practice, they appear to be applied unequally and unfairly). However, regardless of Mill’s potential stance, and given the current role of Canadian press as an open source of information to citizens, the state should not decide what a free press should print. It is a morally difficult stance to take when printed material is considered hateful and potentially harmful but, if a free press is a cornerstone of democracy, it is a principled position meant to ensure continued liberty of

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Formal Essay #1 : We Need to Defend Speech We Hate In the article ‘We Need to Defend Speech We Hate “by Lee Rowland.…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Throughout history philosophers have argued over every topic one could imagine however one of the most explored topics is the rights of citizens. What must those who enter a society under their free will give up to be an active member? Is the government allowed to ask you to give up some of your rights for the betterment of society? Questions such as these and countless more have been answered and debated by philosophers for years. Some of the most prominent arguments have been made by John Stuart Mill and John Locke.…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Having Free Speech is the basic right that Americans have, it is the ability to speaks one’s mind and ideas. Theres are many benefits to having the ability to project ideas without censorship. Caleb Yong author of “Does Freedom of Speech Include Hate Speech?” argues that the liberal justice has a special protection against the restriction of speech and expression, he calls it “Free Speech Principle” where it includes its “sensitivity to the distinction between coverage and protection (Yong)” that the speech should be monitored. Hate speech is too broad to single out the negative effect that it can have in any group. The main concept of this article includes the four categories that hate speech can be set in.…

    • 1030 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Beginning in British Columbia in 2008, two Muslim doctors each filed a complaint with the Tribunal, against the well-known Roger’s Publishing . The article published through Roger’s describes all Muslims as having serious ambitions for world religious domination, and that they will use violence to achieve this supposed goal. The Tribunal’s decision was to dismiss this complaint and I agree with their decision. Although I strongly believe there exists situations where freedom of expression must be limited, this is not of these situations. In this case, the article was merely expressing an opinion in a way that was not hateful or filled with contempt.…

    • 830 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in Canada, the final court of appeal, and the last legal resort for all litigants; therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law (Supreme Court of Canada tour). The landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the R v. Keegstra case regarding the freedom of expression portrays the theoretical concepts behind the court’s ruling as it is the job of the court to deliver a fair decision to the parties involved, as well as a decision that maintains law and order in society. The R v. Keegstra ruling contains insights from the consensus theory and the labelling theory, as the decision of the court was in the interest of the public. To better understand a criminal law case and come up with a conclusion, the theory used must have a valid structure and must follow the rules of critical thinking and logic (Boyd, Cartwright and Heidt, 2015: 120). Also, the purpose of the criminal law must be understood as criminal law serves a purpose, which takes into account some theoretical aspects of the consensus theory and…

    • 1338 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Hell You Say Sanneh

    • 646 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Hell You Say: Critical Analysis In this article originally published in the New Yorker, Kelefa Sanneh is giving us a very objective view of free speech and the two sides to it. He points out that on one side the liberals are arguing that there should be some kind of limit put on it so that people don’t get offended. On the other hand conservatives are arguing that free speech is one of our most fundamental rights and there should be no restrictions placed on it. He illustrates the arguments made by the two sides but fails to make an argument of his own and write a coherent essay.…

    • 646 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Freedom of expression deals with the thought that the people of the community should make up their own mind and express their beliefs wherever they want including in public. Regarding this issue, the perspectives by Jeremy Waldron and Catherine MacKinnon that are put forth, are both effective explanations for their contemporary take. In this essay, I will argue that MacKinnon’s’ argument is the correct position, over Waldron’s. I believe it is the more powerful argument because of her exploration of the collision between equality and law, her references to real-world examples such as sexual and racial harassment, and the acknowledgment of the oppressed voices’ being overshadowed.…

    • 1367 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This case shows that section 1 of the charter can be used to limit the individual’s rights, which in this case was fair and just relative to the eyes of the democratic society of Canada. The use of section 1 of the charter allowed for the promotion of strengthening…

    • 772 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mary Ellen Turpel provides her perspective on how the rule of law is very problematic. Her critique is based on the notion that the concept of the rule of law – that everyone is equal -has been developed and adapted by Western states as a method to restrain the government. Turpel argument is not about the debate of individual and collative right, rather it is about rethinking how we think and fundamentally how we perceive our rights. It is important that Ontario Human Rights Code does not undermine other people’s human rights because they do not belong to the so-called dominant group. Her argument is that one cannot understand the difference of cultural relevance without letting go over your cultural view.…

    • 1286 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Stuart Mill, a philosopher during the mid-1800’s, is known as one of the most important western political philosophers in the past three hundred years. Many of his arguments on freedom can be seen intertwined with the current way we run societies around the world today. Being a self proclaimed Utilitarian, Mill focuses his arguments on making the collective reside with the most utility possible, with utility being defined by happiness. To achieve maximum utility, Mill presents three larger arguments,the harm principle, experiments of living, and freedom of speech. Before one can begin to agree or criticize Mill's arguments they must first delve into the core of Mill’s teachings, the harm principle.…

    • 1836 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mill contends that opinions should not be expressed if this is done to cause mischief and that they are permissible to be expressed if they do not. He argues that it is justifiable that a man expresses a negative opinion towards the ownership of private property or states that merchants are the reason for poverty (Mill 52). Although controversial in nature, such opinions are not harming anyone and for this reason, should have the ability to circulate. However, the opinion is only justifiable in certain instances where the context of the situation affirms it is not inflicting harm on another individual or a group (Mill 16). To illustrate this point, Mill refers to a scenario in which the same opinion is expressed by a group of people which could lead to dangerous circumstances (e.g. mob outside of corn-dealers house).…

    • 2454 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For one dedicated to the furthering of liberal ideas within the political sphere, the application of limitations appears, upon first reading, to be in direct contrast with that goal. If the advancement of human society hinges upon the free practice of one’s unique moral code and personal intellectual exploration, in what regard does the limitation of other’s same rights elevate the collective good of a society as a whole? Although seemingly paradoxical in nature, the “enforcement of restraints”(7) complements John Stuart Mill’s major principles of moral human behavior, in such a way that the balance of liberty versus authority shifts in a direction favorable to human progression. In essence, a liberal society is one in which the will of the people is safeguarded by the larger powers at hand; with limitations placed conservatively so as not to infringe upon one’s individual rights. If total free will was the object of desire, it would inevitably undermine the very principles upon which it hinges, destroying itself by the very doctrines it wrote.…

    • 660 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It is quite apparent to say that every freedom of speech is not absolute. In Australia, legislation prohibits, or renders unlawful, speech or expression in many different contexts. Some limitations on speech have long been recognised by the common law itself, such as obscenity and sedition, defamation, blasphemy, incitement, and passing off. Numerous Commonwealth laws may be seen as interfering with freedom of speech and expression as well. Arguably, such laws do not encroach on the traditional freedom, but help define it.…

    • 101 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The criterion of right and wrong controversy has yet to be concluded though many years of argumentation have ensued. Mill attempts to explain the criterion of right and wrong using the concept of utilitarianism. Utility is not something that should be contrasted with pleasure, but rather pleasure itself with the freedom of pain. The criterion of right and wrongness is introduced for utility as the actions are right in proportion if they promote happiness and are wrong in proportion if they produced the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined by pleasure and the absence of pain and unhappiness is vice versa.…

    • 1637 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mill makes several assumptions regarding the ability of society to rationally understand the difference of harmful and offensive. There is a grey area when it comes to differentiating what is considered to be practising one’s freedom of speech or being offensive to those around them. Since there is no concrete definition on what can be considered to be ‘freedom of speech’, John Stuart Mill, author of On Liberty focuses on prohibiting the government from limiting freedom of speech and allowing citizens to have no limitations on their speech under the exception of harming others.…

    • 1624 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays