Freedom of Speech Can Cause Harm Onto Others

Freedom of expression is defined in the Irish constitution under Article 40.6.1. It grants citizens of Ireland the ‘liberty’ to exercise rights such as freedom of speech, press, assembly and association once they are ‘subject to public order and morality’. This clearly shows that legally, freedom of expression is limited and this corresponds with the views of John Stuart Mill. I would agree with Mill that people should be let do as they please once they do not cause harm onto others. The ‘Harm Principle’ should apply to harm physically, financially, and harm to reputation and contrary to Mill I believe that emotional harm should also be included. This system of freedom of expression allows for a variety of opinions to be expressed but limits hate speech and false words which damage society as a whole. In this essay I will look at how we can limit freedom of expression and at examples of cases where freedom of expression could cause harm to others. Lastly, I will look at the dangers of limiting freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression, whilst in the name seems to have no limits, is often restricted to different levels by the constitution of a country or by various rulings. In Ireland, our freedom of expression is held to a standard of ‘public order and morality’ and in Canada the Supreme Court ruled that ‘freedom of expression is not absolute’ given that hate speech is given in order to limit the expression of other groups. Both of these provisions fit with Mill’s harm principle, as they are allowing varying opinions to be expressed but with limits so to protect the rights of others. Other jurisdictions use harsher methods to limit or completely prevent freedom of expression. In Afghanistan, although article 24 of the constitution allows for ‘liberty as the natural right of the citizen’ all of the laws passed must align with Islamic morality, clearly placing a huge restriction on the freedom of its citizens. It is clear that although most countries worldwide allow for freedom of expression, just as Mill advocated for, there are often restrictions imposed, some which are lenient and in line with the Harm Principle and others which blatantly limit expression and are unconstitutional.

I would agree with Mill that in cases where expression could cause harm to others it should be limited. Mill believed that this harm should extend to physical, financial and repetitional harm. However I also believe that it should also extend to emotional harm, especially in an age where mental health issues are taking centre stage. There have been many notable cases where freedom of expression have led to harm being caused to other people or groups. A lack of limitations has led to an increase in white supremacy in America. The very lenient 1st amendment does not place any restrictions on freedom of expression. This has led to an increase in hate speech, particularly against minorities in the USA. According to a 2018 New York Times article, reports of hate crime increased by 17% from 2016 to 2017. Majority of those reports were crimes motivated by race and ethnicity. This movement has not just been isolated to America. We can see examples of hate crimes in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Norway. These perpetrators have gone past acceptable freedom of expression and have harmed others, clearly effecting the lives of many more people than just themselves. The terrorist in New Zealand was inspired by the manifestos of Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people on a Norwegian island and Dylan Roof, who killed 9 black parishioners in Charleston, South Carolina, according to a 2019 Times Magazine article. President Donald Trump has also contributed to these crimes, refusing to condemn the acts of white supremacists in his country, most notably stating that there were fine people on ‘both sides’ in the racial violence in Charlottesville in 2017. This racial language was also seen during the Brexit debates leading up to the referendum. The campaign relied on hate speech towards minorities and immigrants. These accusations coming from the leaders of the successful campaign has coincided with a spike in hate crime in the UK. The United Nation’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination argued that ‘British politicians helped fuel a steep rise in racist hate crimes during and after the EU referendum campaign’. It is clear that in some cases a lack of limitations on freedom of expression can cause harm to others and in my opinion this should be a case where we should constrain freedom of expression in order to protect society as a whole.

Unlike Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’ which ignores emotional wellbeing, I believe that today we should be looking after our mental health in addition to our physical wellbeing. Since Mill’s time in the 1800’s, methods of communication have changed which has increased the scope of our voice and the speed at which we can release content into the global community. This digital age has been one of the leading causes of mental health issues among young people. Now a post or message that can be made freely in seconds, without any limitations from social media providers, can damage the mental health of a person for far longer than a physical injury. Mill did not have to consider this when devising his theory, yet now millions of people are suffering due to the actions of others and large tech companies like Facebook are not responding adequately. In my opinion, their platform should be regulated in order to maintain ‘morality’ in Ireland and further afield.

Whilst I would argue that a certain level of limitation on freedom of expression is essential to maintain law and order in society today, however I do believe that too much limitation can cause grave harm. Mill feared that in mass democracy, individual freedom could end up being more restricted in a theory which Mill calls the ‘tyranny of the majority’. It is a theory that the majority of the electorate will place its own interests above the interests of the minority and at their expense. This comes about when the minorities are not given the chance to freely express themselves due to the strength of the majority. These limitations on the minority voice can be seen currently in the US House of Representatives with Democratic Socialist Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, being silenced and mocked by Republican members and centrist Democrats. Her representation of minorities is being compromised due to the opinions of others who seek to undermine her freedom of expression. It has also been seen throughout the world that Government control over freedom of expression can have detriment of the society around it. In a Stanford University study into censorship in China, it was found that censorship decreased the likelihood for students to express their real opinions and even with full access to the internet in this experiment, only 53% of the students chose to access the internet in its full capacity. It is clear that a society without freedom of expression does not crave freedom of expressions as it is not what they are used to and they do not know what they don’t have. An air of propaganda has filled their lives, like in many other totalitarian states, which has limited their expression, giving them little freedom to form individual opinions. This is dangerous as Mill believes that all opinions should be heard in order to balance the debate and to allow information to be spread.

In conclusion, I agree with Mill in so far as freedom of expression being limitless unless it causes harm onto others. I believe that it is important to hear opinions from all sides, as the opinions of one should not be forced onto others unwillingly. This qualification allows for adequate expression of opinion and self without it verging into uncontrolled anarchy.