“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (UN General Assembly, Article 19). This excerpt from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created in response to the atrocities committed during World War II, recognizes the unalienable human right to freedom of speech and expression. Over one hundred and fifty years earlier, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution declared, “[c]ongress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, thus guaranteeing the right to speak freely without government interference (Congress). In
…show more content…
The top three most discussed justifications include the harm principle, the offense principle, and the paternalistic justification. In his On Liberty, English philosopher John Stuart Mill presents his harm principle to justify limiting speech stating, “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”; however, many dispute what Mill means when he refers to harm (23). Mill’s use of such a broad and vague term as harm extends far beyond the scope of hate speech. Mill’s choice of words encompasses any physical, psychological, direct, or indirect effects of speech and fails to specify the types of speech causing harm. In contrast, American philosopher Joel Feinberg argues the harm principle does not reach far enough, and instead, he proposes the offense principle, which suggests the need to limit some forms of expression due to their extreme offensiveness (D. Mill). While society, in general, hopes to avoid offending anyone, applying such principles poses great challenges because, as David van Mill explains, “many people take offense as the result of an overly sensitive disposition” or “can be deeply offended by statements that others find mildly amusing”. Many examples of comedy, music, film, and other entertainment contain offensive elements acceptable to some people and deplorable to others; as a result, finding the balance between maintaining freedom of speech while respecting the feelings of others becomes a struggle. Lastly, the paternalistic justification for limiting speech argues the potential offender “might not have a full grasp of the consequences of the action involved (whether it be speech or some other form of behavior) and hence can be prevented from engaging in the act” (D. Mill). Here, the state
The top three most discussed justifications include the harm principle, the offense principle, and the paternalistic justification. In his On Liberty, English philosopher John Stuart Mill presents his harm principle to justify limiting speech stating, “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”; however, many dispute what Mill means when he refers to harm (23). Mill’s use of such a broad and vague term as harm extends far beyond the scope of hate speech. Mill’s choice of words encompasses any physical, psychological, direct, or indirect effects of speech and fails to specify the types of speech causing harm. In contrast, American philosopher Joel Feinberg argues the harm principle does not reach far enough, and instead, he proposes the offense principle, which suggests the need to limit some forms of expression due to their extreme offensiveness (D. Mill). While society, in general, hopes to avoid offending anyone, applying such principles poses great challenges because, as David van Mill explains, “many people take offense as the result of an overly sensitive disposition” or “can be deeply offended by statements that others find mildly amusing”. Many examples of comedy, music, film, and other entertainment contain offensive elements acceptable to some people and deplorable to others; as a result, finding the balance between maintaining freedom of speech while respecting the feelings of others becomes a struggle. Lastly, the paternalistic justification for limiting speech argues the potential offender “might not have a full grasp of the consequences of the action involved (whether it be speech or some other form of behavior) and hence can be prevented from engaging in the act” (D. Mill). Here, the state