If Richard Spencer were to request to give a speech on SVSU’s campus, then the school should decline his request. This is because Richard Spencer’s speech is, or at the very least, very very close to hate speech. Further, allowing Richard Spencer’s speech does not necessarily align with John Stuart Mills opinion on the “evils of silencing speech”. Lastly, allowing Richard Spencer to speech on his white supremacist movement would result in a slippery slope. The speeches that Richard Spencer gives are filled with derogatory comments and verbiage that put those who are not classified in his race in harms way, however, it also puts the majority of the white population at much discomfort. John Stuart Mill would therefore argue that SVSU should
…show more content…
Therefore, it dos not “deprive the opportunity of exchanging error for truth nor for the strengthening and clarifying of perception” (Mill, 17). Mill states that those two thing are the reason that silencing opinions are a peculiar evil. Denying the use of SVSU does not mean that Spencer cannot talk to students nor present in Saginaw. It is the schools way of picking and choosing who they want to speak on campus, which they most certainly already do. Although Mill rejects paternalism, he does say that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm [or a definite risk of harm] to others” whether it be physical violence or mental (Mill, p. 10). Therefore, a school such as SVSU with a enhanced focus and outreach towards diversity as well as students of numerous races on campus, must deny Spencer’s speech in order to prevent harm. Especially, when Spencer’s speeches come with a “definite risk of harm” as seen in multiple occasions. Mill himself believes that the only time to allow such paternalism would be to prevent harm and Spencer’s movement has already proven harmful to different racial …show more content…
If we allow him to speak on campus than we tolerate the violence that often shows up at his speeches. However, even further is the problem that allowing Richard Spencer to speak leads to a slippery slope. If we allow him to come talk about ethnic cleansing, white supremacy movements, and allow violence to take place because of his words then we will have to allow all white supremacy groups until eventually the Ku Klux Klan will be wanting to speak at SVSU. Such a slippery slope would be very dangerous and would be neglecting our duty to prevent harm. This is because we would not have prevented the “definite damage, or the definite risk of damage to individuals and the public” which Mill believed was the only reason to limit ones liberties (Mill, p. 87). We already know from Spencer’s other speeches that he comes with a definite risk of damage and therefore he should be denied the ability to speech at SVSU if he requests to do
Therefore, it dos not “deprive the opportunity of exchanging error for truth nor for the strengthening and clarifying of perception” (Mill, 17). Mill states that those two thing are the reason that silencing opinions are a peculiar evil. Denying the use of SVSU does not mean that Spencer cannot talk to students nor present in Saginaw. It is the schools way of picking and choosing who they want to speak on campus, which they most certainly already do. Although Mill rejects paternalism, he does say that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm [or a definite risk of harm] to others” whether it be physical violence or mental (Mill, p. 10). Therefore, a school such as SVSU with a enhanced focus and outreach towards diversity as well as students of numerous races on campus, must deny Spencer’s speech in order to prevent harm. Especially, when Spencer’s speeches come with a “definite risk of harm” as seen in multiple occasions. Mill himself believes that the only time to allow such paternalism would be to prevent harm and Spencer’s movement has already proven harmful to different racial …show more content…
If we allow him to speak on campus than we tolerate the violence that often shows up at his speeches. However, even further is the problem that allowing Richard Spencer to speak leads to a slippery slope. If we allow him to come talk about ethnic cleansing, white supremacy movements, and allow violence to take place because of his words then we will have to allow all white supremacy groups until eventually the Ku Klux Klan will be wanting to speak at SVSU. Such a slippery slope would be very dangerous and would be neglecting our duty to prevent harm. This is because we would not have prevented the “definite damage, or the definite risk of damage to individuals and the public” which Mill believed was the only reason to limit ones liberties (Mill, p. 87). We already know from Spencer’s other speeches that he comes with a definite risk of damage and therefore he should be denied the ability to speech at SVSU if he requests to do