Though free speech only represents one topic in a larger subset of aspects of society that make up individual liberty, it is often thought of as one of the more important aspects of individual liberty. Individual liberty is essentially entails the extent to which a person has the ability to act as they see fit. Free speech guarantees “the ability to speak freely, to express any view, without censorship.” Rather than merely representing the most basic protection of opinions (free speech doesn’t entail protecting one from the judgment of others), it represents the driving force behind all movements of change, and the ultimate check to the opinions of the powerful majorities of the world. It is because of this that any limit on free speech, among
…show more content…
In 1994, the Hutu ethnic group staged a rebellion following the death of one of their leaders, which they blamed on the country’s other large ethnic group, the Tutsis. The leaders of their government quickly got on the radio to spread a larger message that the Tutsis had to be ethnically cleansed . This shows the two of the adverse effects of hate speech. Years of hate speech directed at the Tutsis by the Hutus, which was inspired largely by Belgian occupiers’ action earlier in the century , had created a mentality among the Hutus that they should harbor ill will for their neighbors, despite the fact that Hutus and Tutsis “speak the same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions.” This made it such that, during a sparkplug political event, the Hutu extremist leadership was able to get on the radio waves and transition the direction of their hate speech from rhetorical implication of harm to direct orders of harm. What began as Hutus disliking Tutsis due to favorable treatment from Belgian settlers, lead to the death of over 800,000 Rwandans over the course of less than 100 days …show more content…
While Mill himself may have felt that hate speech was fairly harmless, it is clear from contemporary history that it is anything but. Perhaps Mill was correct that during his lifetime, which ended prior to the advent of radio and other advanced media outlets, world wars, and widely publicized mass genocides, that hate speech didn’t cause direct harm, but today that is not the case. As exemplified by the Hutus and Tutsis, and the Nazis before them, hate speech, in a world where words can be spread within milliseconds, clearly can inflict great harm onto others. It is because of this potential for harm that hate speech must be censored. Furthermore, it is difficult to see any benefit of hate speech, as we have defined it in this paper, which was one of Mill’s tests of whether a liberty that harms others should be permissible . To provide individual liberty to all, it is imperative to impede the individual liberty of the individual. Despite this, it is important to employ caution when limiting free speech, as doing so too liberally is a very slippery slope. Unless hate speech is clearly defined, as I have attempted to do in this paper, it can be applied to stifle the opinions of comics, satirists, and other free individuals unjustly. All in all, while it must be done carefully, it is
In 1994, the Hutu ethnic group staged a rebellion following the death of one of their leaders, which they blamed on the country’s other large ethnic group, the Tutsis. The leaders of their government quickly got on the radio to spread a larger message that the Tutsis had to be ethnically cleansed . This shows the two of the adverse effects of hate speech. Years of hate speech directed at the Tutsis by the Hutus, which was inspired largely by Belgian occupiers’ action earlier in the century , had created a mentality among the Hutus that they should harbor ill will for their neighbors, despite the fact that Hutus and Tutsis “speak the same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions.” This made it such that, during a sparkplug political event, the Hutu extremist leadership was able to get on the radio waves and transition the direction of their hate speech from rhetorical implication of harm to direct orders of harm. What began as Hutus disliking Tutsis due to favorable treatment from Belgian settlers, lead to the death of over 800,000 Rwandans over the course of less than 100 days …show more content…
While Mill himself may have felt that hate speech was fairly harmless, it is clear from contemporary history that it is anything but. Perhaps Mill was correct that during his lifetime, which ended prior to the advent of radio and other advanced media outlets, world wars, and widely publicized mass genocides, that hate speech didn’t cause direct harm, but today that is not the case. As exemplified by the Hutus and Tutsis, and the Nazis before them, hate speech, in a world where words can be spread within milliseconds, clearly can inflict great harm onto others. It is because of this potential for harm that hate speech must be censored. Furthermore, it is difficult to see any benefit of hate speech, as we have defined it in this paper, which was one of Mill’s tests of whether a liberty that harms others should be permissible . To provide individual liberty to all, it is imperative to impede the individual liberty of the individual. Despite this, it is important to employ caution when limiting free speech, as doing so too liberally is a very slippery slope. Unless hate speech is clearly defined, as I have attempted to do in this paper, it can be applied to stifle the opinions of comics, satirists, and other free individuals unjustly. All in all, while it must be done carefully, it is