A white supremacist wants to advocate his political views on a billboard in a majority African-American neighborhood. A neo-Nazi group wants to march in a city with a large number of Holocaust survivors. A conservative Christian passes out literature denouncing the legitimacy of gay marriage outside of a wedding chapel. Are these actions examples of hate speech? If so, should they be legally permitted according to Mill? Is he correct? What should the state do about speech that discriminates or preaches intolerance?
According to Mills, as long as actions are done outside of an establishment then they are permitted and not considered personal attacks on individuals. In Mill's book, there's a lot of punishments are made because they affect other people and that is the main concern with punishments. However, even though these actions might not be the most ethical, they are legally allowed because they are not in the direct place with people that associate with what is getting hated on. Matters can only be controlled when they are inside establishments and in these examples, they can not be punished. There is an argument of whether or not they are moral actions but legally they can not be kicked out or punished because of the systems that Mills brings up in his book.
ReplyDeleteMill would argue that hate speech should be allowed in our society as long as it doesn’t harm others. He firmly believes that any doctrine should be expressed because everyone has the liberty to freedom of speech. He claims that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill 16). J.S Mill says that having the liberty to express and exchange opinions are very important for facilitating meaningful discussions and gives the opportunity for understanding truth. Furthermore, Mill warns the reader about the danger of censorship and silencing opinions by saying, “To refuse a hearing to an opinion because they are sure that it is false is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility” (Mill 17). However, Mill’s harm principle plays a critical role in his philosophical beliefs. He exclaims that everyone has the, “freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age and not forced or deceived” (Mill 12). His argument brings justification to actions like neo-Nazi’s marching in a community of holocaust survivors or white supremicists advocating their beliefs with a billboard in a African-America neighboorhood. Even though these horrific, gut-wrenching, hateful acts can inflict pain and trauma to marginalized peoples, Mill believes that these individuals have the fundamental rights to gather and express their beliefs, as long as they do not physically harm or violate the rights of others. Because these hate groups do not directly interact or harm others, J.S Mill would say that they are legally permitted to express their views as it is guaranteed in their liberty.
ReplyDeleteThese are all examples of hate speech. The actions listed all are examples of a group targeting a specific minority group in a threatening manner. Mill believes that everyone should have the freedom to believe whatever they want, and do whatever they want, so long as these beliefs and actions do not cause harm to others.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is important to define “harm”. Is this physical harm? Emotional harm? I believe that Mill is referring to physical harm because anything can cause emotional harm to some extent. So, according to Mill these examples of hate speech are legally permitted.
In my opinion, this is not right. There needs to be a distinction between different kinds of emotional harm. I believe that all of these hate speech examples listed above should be illegal. There is a difference between a group of Neo-Nazis marching and expressing their threatening beliefs to a large group of Jewish people (Jewish people who have already experienced enough anti-Semitism related trauma in their lives) and a group of students protesting homework at their school. Both of these are examples of a group of people expressing their beliefs hoping to create change in their favor. The difference I see between the two situations is in the first example, the topic is something that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed over and bringing back the topic is more likely to cause severe emotional harm, trauma, and violence. This is hate speech and in my opinion should be illegal. With the second example, violence is not likely to follow, and the topic is not something that will cause a large group of people severe emotional harm. This is not hate speech and should be legal in my opinion.
I think that it is also important to distinguish the oppressed from the oppressors. In the first example, the oppressors are the ones protesting. With the second example, the oppressed would be the ones protesting and expressing their beliefs through action. I believe that people who have been oppressed should be able to express their beliefs through action, however people who are expressing oppressive beliefs should not be permitted to act on their beliefs (but, they can believe whatever they want to).
Mill argues that hate speech is performed in a public setting and causes physical harm to other people. By Mill's definition of hate speech, the events above will not cause any physical harm to anyone, nor should they cause any damage to private property. However, one may argue that since these horrific acts are planned in seemingly specific places, they will cause emotional devastation, leading to physical harm. Mill does not consider morality in his argument of hate speech. Neo-Nazism, white supremacy, and homophobic acts are immoral and should not be performed or promulgated in society. So while Mill may consider those acts perfectly valid in society, given his central argument, I would side more with the opposition. I believe that targeting specific communities with hate speech could lead to traumatic events like PTSD or could cause panic attacks, which would lead to serious physical harm in the population. So, if Mill describes hate speech as any speech that has physically harming effects on a population in a public space, then the examples above are not hate speech. However, if by harm, Mill also means emotional harm, then the examples above are perfect examples of hate speech and should not be tolerated by the state or its population due to an increased likelihood of physical harm.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mill, while none of these actions will do physical harm, there is an argument that could be made that it will do incredible emotional harm. The purpose of these actions are obviously to intimidate and oppress the subjects of the hate speech. Using the offense to others principle, Mill argues that actions like these should be condemned and outlawed since they are not only intended to do harm to others, but also incredibly offensive in general. Personally, I believe that hate speech shouldn't be tolerated in our society. Not only does it separate us as a national community, but it also discourages diversity and democracy by attempting to shut down disliked groups of people. An argument could be made that hate speech is legal under the first Amendment, however that is false. While it is a free country, according to Mill, actions that have intent to harm others should be outlawed entirely. Hate speech is speech, but with the intent to cause emotional harm to others. So, hate speech should be completely illegal.
ReplyDelete