John Stuart Mill In the advocacy of free speech

John Stuart Mill advocating free speech

            Human beings are social agents by nature and they express their rationality partly through speech as they interact with each other. It is through the power of speech that people are able to exchange important ideas that are worth in ensuring that they develop positively within the social system. However, to a great extent, there are circumstances that the liberty on speech ought to be checked especially where it is likely to bring about harm to other people. For instance, where individuals are likely to infringe on other people’s rights or in cases where mere propaganda overrides the rationality that human beings are meant to have. In this paper, the main argument presented is that everybody should be given the rights of speech but must be regulated for purposes of maintaining harmony and peace in the society.

            Though the ideas of John Stuart Mill are aimed at achieving maximum happiness for all the human beings, there is a sufficient reason to disapprove some of the contentions that he holds. Firstly, he claims that an individual has the right to say and act the way they like provided that their actions do not harm the members that are in direct contact with them. Humans being social cannot live on their own. They have to live with others. This means that an individual harming him or herself will also affect others emotionally (Mill, 1993). This means that the self-harm is also likely to affect the other people. This contradicts the idea held by John Stuart Mill.

             Happiness according to him is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, 1993). Conditions resulting to harm on an individual may be injurious to others indirectly. This requires a careful scrutiny to be undertaken on his theory on liberty because the harm that the person suffering is likely to cause to other people might cause discomfort in the society therefore   bringing  about imbalance within the social system.

            Mill saw the human culture as comprised of ideas, thoughts and expressions and not one comprised of the material culture. To him, it is more important that people should not be censored especially when they are to make certain statements of opinions as they carry on their daily activities. To him, certain statements made by human beings play a pivotal role in ensuring that there is sustained development(Mill,1993). No one according to him is supposed to be limited in the way they express their opinions in the society.

            The principal focus of liberty according to John Stuart Mill was the individual. To him, everything else including the society, government, education, among others depends on the rights of the individual to their own liberty. There is no way that a party could enforce their will upon an individual even with their absolute power(Mill,1993). This does not however mean that there is no influence that one can have on another individual. There are instances when one is likely to influence the minds or the thinking of another individual and therefore changing their attitude but not necessarily forcing them to take specific stands or perform certain actions.

            The happiness of an individual belongs to them alone and no infringements can be made that are likely to bar them from enjoying their own liberty. The notion of liberty can be developed through conversations between or among individuals. According to Mill, all people are supposed to convey their views openly without fear or forcing them to others. He claims that one who is learning from him/herself and has nothing to learn from others has a fool as a teacher(Mill,1993).

            Freedom of expression and eccentricity are essential components of an individual for an ideal society. This is because of its ability to bring about dynamism. Mill however outlines the circumstances that the government should get involved in the lives of the individual people. To him, individuality within the society is very vital by the fact that there are instances where the opinion of the majority might be ill informed. In most instances, we act out of selfish interests and we do not have the capacity to judge the courses of actions of others(Mill,1993).

            The non-conformists are helpful in that they are able to challenge the status quo and thus they are able to keep the intellectual balance of ideas in check. This is one of the reasons why there should be freedom of speech. When a society places restrictions to the expression of oneself, it is likely to eventually stop progressing and the people are likely to resemble one another in terms of their customs, beliefs, and moral attitudes. “A genius will do better in an atmosphere of freedom”(Mill,1993). Expressing ones original thoughts assists individuals to develop their characters. Those whose desires are the not of their own, have no characters.

            However, Mills argument is not limited to the individual liberty. He looks at the holistic view of the whole idea and claims that there are instances where individuals should be denied the freedom. This is because of the collective responsibility that people should have. This will work to balance the two concerns regarding the individual liberty and general responsibility of the people. Mill therefore constructs a system that is designed to combat the limitations that would hitherto be imposed by giving the people total freedom. He constructs the ‘harm principle’. If the government involvement in limiting the freedom of an individual would tend to reduce the harm that such an individual would cause to other people, then the government is justified in denying people the freedom of expression in such a case. The only problem that is likely to arise when the government interferes with the individual rights is when it is likely to interfere wrongly and in the wrong place. Human liberty according to Mill is divided into three. There is the freedom of association with other people, freedom to pursue one’s own intellectual thoughts and desires provided such actions have no harm to other people (Mill, 1993). His ideas have also left a significant room for people to criticize others way of life.

            From the perspective that Mill wants to view the world and reality in general, there are loophole that allow him to be pinned down. For instance, there is a very big gap to believe that the system of freedom that he advocates is likely to contradict heavily on the customs of the people. His theory might be contradicting the long-standing hegemonic customs (Mill, 1993). This is likely to bring about conflicts in the society because all the people are likely to act and behave in a way that will bring confusion among the societal expectations. Mill notes that the individual freedom is not only beneficial to the individual but also to the whole society.

            In the videos presented in the case of Mark Steyn, he is accused of gross generalizations. He claims that the Muslims are preparing to take over the western world through a bloody war. In addition, he states that the Muslims are also planning to introduce the sharia laws into the whole world. The complainants accuse him of using the wrong method to make very sensitive conclusions. According to the complainants, Mark Steyn is on the wrong.
            In the mark steyn case, he does not possess a characteristic that will assist him to take up his responsibility. The repercussions highly affected the Muslim students. According to Mill, freedom is a human right. He goes ahead and notes that without freedom (especially of speech), the society cannot flourish and grow into a great nation. It is through the power of expression that a great idea is built and the society grows to a higher level. Henry Adam on the other hand notes that a free individual should be responsible for himself. He adds that the society needs to grasp more of this.
            Mill emphasized more on individual liberty and the role that it has in developing the political society. The liberty emphasized in his work is that one of the individual being a judge of his/her owns self. This gives him/her to judge whether his/her actions are right or wrong. The issue of individualism is highly emphasized in the work of Mills (Mill, 1993). The individuals pursue their own selfish ambitions and are the sole determinants of their own actions. This kind of a society where there are no rules is likely to bring about conflicts. Rules are there to be observed and consistent following of rules assist to make sure that the conflicts that may arise are minimized. The only purpose that control of freedom of speech can be exercised is when there are intentions to prevent harm to others.

             To a great extent, there are sometimes that the power associated with expressions overrides the advantages that can be accrued when people are denied the opportunity to freely express their views. However, on the other hand, there are times when people misuse the chances and use the freedom of expression to further their selfish ambitions. In the case of Mark Steyn, he uses the media and the freedom to express his opinions, which are not grounded, on scientific principles. On the other hand, also, an individual’s decision should not just be ignored by the fact that it is deemed to hurt others. The case of Mark Steyn cannot be ignored until he is unable to produce sound evidence. If it is ignored, then there is likely to be a situation where other more sound arguments are going to be blocked from arising in a specific society (Wollf, 2006). 

            The right to freedom can be considered from a multifaceted point of approach. Firstly, it can be taken as a fundamental right. Secondly, it can also be considered as a moral right. There are many enactments of law that have been made and that tend to limit the extent to which individuals are allowed to express themselves. Most of the laws limit the individuals by inculcating responsibilities that come with the allowed freedom(Mill,1993). If the information that an individual disburses to the public poses a threat to either the nation or the society, then they are likely to face the law to ensure that there is continued harmony among the members of the society.
             A principle will be required to guide the people. There are cases where the people may follow a certain trend that will consequently help them to suppress or even to create sorts of stereotypes to others. For instance, in a democratic country, there are instances where the majority uses tyranny to suppress the minority by developing stereotypes, which might not be justifiable scientifically. There needs to be a system of checks and balances that aim at maintaining peace and harmony to reduce conflicts that are likely to arise from different oriented citizens.

            The episodes on the TVO’s show the debate between Mark Steyn, Khurrum Awan, Naseem Mithoowani, and Muneeza Sheikh. They debate highly more so on the efforts that are geared towards pushing the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal condemn the magazine Maclean's for publishing scripts that they refer to as Islamophobic. More than one million people access the MacLean’s magazine in North America. This makes it to distribute information over a wide area. This requires that the information disseminated be of high quality to avoid conflicts that are likely to be aroused by the victimized group.

            The minority Islam group inhabits the area while the majorities are the Christians. In their discussion, the complainants address the issue of stereotyping by the magazine in order to portray the Islam community as lethal. According to the statement that they make, the writer of the magazine has addressed very sensitive information that needs to be scrutinized and that is why they have resulted to take the matter to the human rights commission for further scrutiny. The material contained in the magazine would send shivers down the spine of most people as they read.

            From an insightful perspective of John Stuart Mill, an individual has the right to express their feelings. On the other hand, however, there are limitations that should be imposed to the citizens especially because of the nature of some of the information that is likely to be dispensed. Even in places where there is total democracy, there is likelihood that groups of people are likely to create stereotypes that will ultimately ruin the reputation of other groups. For instance, the case that is portrayed here shows that the MacLean’s magazine ought to be scrutinized extensively to allow truth to be unfolded to avoid the two groups, the Muslims and the Christians from rubbing shoulders as this would consequently compromise on the peaceful state of the two religions.

            The Canadian human rights act prohibits the spreading of hateful propaganda. This is to discourage discrimination on various grounds such as religion, race, or ethnic affiliation. According to the criminal code of Canada section 318,319, and 320, hate propaganda is highly discouraged. There is a penalty of two years in case an individual is deemed to have spread hate speech to an identifiable group. The identifiable group in this case is any group, which is likely to suffer from discrimination such as race, religion or any other type.

            With regards to the debate, the article written by Mark Steyn does not violate the anti-hate laws. The members of the Canadian Islamic Congress raised the issue to the human rights commission. The article, which is titled, ‘the future belongs to Islam’ seems not to have sufficient grounds to be termed as hateful information. The article was only hurtful to some. In addition, according to the Mills perspective, the article only aired the views or the opinions of the writer and there were no intentions to make it look objective in nature. It was a mere expression of an opinion advocated by Mark. In its real context, the article expresses an opinion of political issues. In addition, in light of the near past historical events, the article discusses about the suffering facing the vast group of the Muslims who do not support the extremists. This further strengthens the fact that the article that is written by Mark Steyn may not necessarily be hateful in nature.

            This means that it is justified to use the principle that Mill advocates to judge the speech under discussion in the given context. Furthermore, although the article may try to rally behind the readers to fear the Muslims through exaggeration, according to the law of the land, fear cannot be synonymous with contempt or hatred. Again, the views that were expressed were not extreme.

                                                References
 Mill, J. S. (1993). On Liberty. J.M. Dent. London.
Wolff, J. (2006). An Introduction to Political Philosophy Revised Edition. Oxford: Oxford              University Press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcnpFCYd7E 1/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcUz1FDb8ks 2/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa2T0nBBfWY 3/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZlGTv63QM0&feature=fvwrel 4/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka7mePjPoFg&feature=fvwrel 5/5

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/1.html