The mental harm that might be caused by free speech is more difficult to recognise and quantify. ![]() Harmful actions leave bruises and scars, damaged property, stolen possessions. This principle is easier to apply to actions than to speech. John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’ holds that one can do whatever one likes as long as one doesn’t harm other people. It’s more difficult to establish the moral limits to freedom of speech than those to freedom of action. But are these laws based on sound moral principles? There are of course legal restrictions on freedom of speech: laws against slander and libel, hate speech, incitement to violence. This is easier said than done, as relativism is rife: my freedom of speech may be your cue for expensive litigation or physical retaliation. In such circumstances it is urgent to find some criteria for establishing what is acceptable and what the moral limits are to free speech. ![]() A group of minor celebrities are attempting to limit further the freedom of the press. Trolls threaten to rape or behead those whose opinions they don’t like. Academics can be reprimanded and even suspended for suggesting that British colonialism was not all bad, or for making a joking remark in a lift. The issue of free speech seems particularly relevant today. ![]() Apologies to the many entrants not included. SUBSCRIBE NOW Question of the Month What are the Moral Limits of Free Speech and Action? Each answer below receives a book.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |