Freedom Of Expression

Arguments in favour of freedom of

expression
It was given by John Stuart Mill.

Human beings are fallible

Fallible means that you are not perfect, God. We can make mistakes. The thing which you
consider the truth it is possible that you are wrong. Human fallibility is the beginning of wisdom,
philosophy. You cannot study philosophy by realizing that human knowledge is limited. They
cannot claim to know absolute truth.
Humans are not infallible. When you are suppressing an opinion you are saying that this opinion
is wrong. That opinion may be true. You should allow people to form their own judgement and to
consider them. You have no right, no authority to decide the question of all mankind and
exclude every other person from the means of judging. I have found out what is true and what is
false, therefore it is right for everyone to hear the truth and ban the false. Who has this right to
decide what is true and false. If you allow people to express their opinion, their critique may not
come forward.
We can never be sure that jis baat ko hum reject kar rahe hain kahin wo true tou nhi hai and we
don't want to ban the truth

Debate is the antidote to dogmatism

If you allow people to freely debate with each other, then the fixed opinions k mere khayal main
truth yehi hai tou main ese pe qayam rahun aur dusre k khyal main truth kuch aur hai tou wo
ose pe qayam rahe rather than listening to each other. The solution is you should allow freedom
of expression.
A dogma is a view that you subscribe to because you are supposed to subscribe to. It is a view
that you have no rational support for and you agre e to that view because everybody agree with
it and you are supposed to agree with it.
For e.g: vaccine are safe. You want people to believe this rather than holding it as a dead
dogma something which they are not supposed to Question. It should be a living truth. They
should understand how exactly vaccine work. You should allow denalist(who are rejecting
vaccine wali baat) so that people on your side can understand why their views are rubbish
If you protect the truth from law, then it becomes a dead dogma rather than living truth.
Even if you are sure that the view you are banning is false you should not ban it because Jo
truth hai it should be a living truth rather than dead dogma and if you allow disagreement the
believe in truth will be deeply established because you get to know what are the arguments in
favour of it.

Truth is many sided and often emerges through the reconciling and combining of
opposites
Usually in debates when two sides are debating for e.g the debate on abortion. Is it possible for
both sides to have elements of truth. Maybe it's possible that the side who are opposing
abortion may have some truths and the supporting side may also have valid points. We should
form the position by combining both of these sides.
Even the ones who are opposing popular opinions. If they say something which is totally wrong
but still it is worth hearing them.
Popular truth are sometimes, rarely whole truth. Often Popular truth are half truths and they
need to be completed by contrary opinions you aap contrary opinions ko combine kr k aap
ziyada comprehensive, true picture form kr sakte hain and this is only possible when you listen
to many different sides.

Conformity leads to stagnation

You need freedom of expression for the generation of new ideas. If there is no freedom of
expression will science be able to progress, philosophy be able to progress? Geniuses can
breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom.
A state which dwarfs its men( which means boona bana dena) in order they may be docile
instrument (docile means obedient) in its hands even for beneficial purposes will find that with
small men no great thing can really be accomplished.
Agar aap intellectual development ko stop kardenge, un ko nhi parhne denge history,
philosophy, un ko opinions express nhi karne denge aur debate ko stifle karenge they will
become dwarfs, docile(control) creatures, small men. With small men you cannot achieve
anything big. You as a nation will be left behind. Those nations will proceed further who
supports intellectual development in its people.

Censorship cannot defeat ideas

Censorship is when an authority (such as a government or religion) cuts out or suppresses
communication. This may be done because it is considered wrong, harmful, sensitive, or
inconvenient to the government or other authority.

We cannot censor ideas in the age of internet. There is a streisand effect named after barbara
streisand who is a singer. One day some people leaked her home photos on internet. She went
to court and asked those pictures to be removed. So what happened. Those pictures were
leaked all over the internet. Everybody wanted to take a look at these pictures.
If you try to censor something, there is a opposite. It is promoted even more. If a movie is
banned, people will still download it from torrent in order to know esa kya hai movie main.
The solution to bad ideas is an open debate. If you want a bad idea to go away, it is better to
debate, discuss not to censor it. Because censoring it will promote it even more. If you put these
ideas in an open debate, it will be available for everyone to know weakness.

The need for those criticizing in power

Salim Shehzad wrote wrote inside al qaida and taliban in which he showed his our military
establishment has links extremist agencies. If he is speaking the truth then it should be
investigated, should be a wake up call for the rulers but he was abducted and killed. Phone
records were wiped out from his phone. This is only for intelligence agencies to do that. If
someone tries to criticize the state, if somebody tries to hold those in power accountable, so that
person is abducted and killed. It is an act of intelligence agencies.

Censorship gives too much power to the state

It leaves too much to incompetent burreacracies. Burreaucrats are famous to be incompetent.
Not having wisdom is a universal truth. Will you give rights to the burreaucrats to decide what is
right for you to listen, hear, read? If not burreacracies, then will u give right to corporations. Will
you give facebook the right to decide what is right for you to listen, hear, read.

In america constitution, there is a statement of free civil libertarianism. The congress should
make no laws which restrict the freedom of religion, assembly, expression of the citizen of US.
You cannot make such laws which restrict the freedom of expression of the people.
You think that danger arising from freedom of expression is not harmful. It is more dangerous
which arise from political suppression. You should look this in the long run consequence Not to
look from gain and loss consequence.
It is possible that you censor something or someone like Trump and then you receive gain.
Because of rubbish he is saying and undermining american democracy. If this policy is adopted
that someone is critically criticizing elections and we will silent him.
What will be consequences in the long run. It will be dangerous.
Once you give the power to the state to stop or censor state, burreaucrats will misuse that
power.

Civil libertarianism admits that there are some speech which would be restricted. Then on what
basis they will determine which type of speech can be banned or not?
Mill gives us a criteria. Mill says there are two principles which a speech can be censored

The offense principle

It states that it is right to censor a speech if it offends you. It is right to censor expression if it
offends you.
If a racist offends you then you can ban/censor that speech.
If something makes you sad, unhappy, give trouble then you can censor it.
Will this principle work? Mill says it does not work because what offends me will be very
different what offends others then we will ban everything.
If majority is offended by something, it will be considered, what about minority when they are
offended? Don't they have importance, rights?
What if truth offends someone then?
The theory of carpenicus that sun is centered in the solar system it offended a lot of catholics.
They said this is an offense against our faith.

Mill says if something offends u then you should speak against but u cannot censor.

The harm principle

You can censor speech if it causes a lot of harm. Being a utilitarian, Mill will balance the harm of
censorship against a harm that a particular speech is causing. If a speech is causing a tangible
harm in society then there is a justification of banning it. Because that harm outweighs the harm
of censoring it. It is Cost benefit analysis. Because if you do censorship then you have a criteria
for it. You have to adopt a rule which may hurt people in the long run. So you have to balance
the harm of censorship with harm of speech and then you have to decide whether an
expression can be banned or not.
The reason for censoring speech is to harm prevent from the community.

Applying the Harm Principle: The civil libertarian approach to

hate speech
Should we ban it?
There are two threats for civil libertarianism. Religious and so called progressive. Progressvists
believe that non progressive speech should be banned. A lot of progressive claim that hate
speech should be banned.
Who decides it is hate speech.
From my religious knowledge, I believe that gay marriage should not be allowed so this is a hate
speech. Radical feminist believe that those who are born male should not go to toilet which are
meant for women even if they are trans, they identify women. Those who are born male should
not compete in women sports even if they identify as women. So is this a hate speech? If I say
that trans women are not allowed to compete with naturally born women. So this is not a hate
speech. It is a debate. But in today's attitude if one expresses his contrary view against these
things is hate speech. We can have civil discussion about these topics. But if you talk about this
you are a racist, sexist, transprobe and u should be cancelled. Even the ones who are with you
will become against you. The question is how you define hate speech. In west, muslims have a
strategy that if someone criticizes islam and there is no hate and it is rational criticism they call it
islamophobia as there are no blasphemy laws.
If I publish a study that there is a iq difference between white european and black african so this
makes me a racist? Should I not publish this truth. If you sexist speech is hate speech then who
will define it. If I believe in traditional gender roles so this is a hate speech.
Civil libertarianism argues that banning hate speech is bad idea

blasphemy
Blasphemy is lying about "God's words or character." It is purposefully leading others in a
direction away from God
Should we ban it ?
Problem is who will define it. Can blasphemy laws be misused?

pornography
Should it be banned
There is a debate regarding this in civil libertarianism. Most civil libertarianism say that it should
not be banned. Some radical feminist argued it should be banned.
What is pornography? Is there a difference between nudity and pornography?
If sex is depicted in art so is that a pornography. If sexuality is depicted in movies so is that
pornography. If nude human form is depicted in art so is that pornography.
If you say that human sexuality should not be depicted in art then what kind of society are you in
who cannot discuss sexuality openly. Then will u education people in the society regarding
sexuality.
There is no evidence that viewing porn leads someone making violent towards women.
Extreme or violent pornography you can regulate on harm principle. But a lot of people will
oppose on regulating it.
Child pornography can be banned on basis of harm principle because children are genuinely
harmed and their consent is not there.
In pornography there is lot of exploitation. Porn does have many disadvantages. It can depict a
picture of false sexual intermacy. It can ruin relationship. There is some porn which is close to
reality and some porn which is unrealistic. So there is a need for sexual education. Sexual
satisfaction should be openly discussed in society. Orgasm, eroticism should be discussed.
Then u can create an awareness in society which can counter the harm which porn is giving

incitement to violence
Should we ban incitement to violence
The doctrine of clear and present danger. If there is a clear and present danger then you can
ban speech. Because incitement to violence is a vague term. If I criticize military establishment
then you can accuse me that I am inciting violence. The military should be prosecuted. If I
criticize religious doctrines, views so it doesn't mean that I am inciting violence against them and
you put me in jail

In US terms, incitement to violence means

If I call on violence, if somebody should be killed then this is incitement to violence and it should
be banned

But later on US ne ohio vs brandon berg k case main made a clear interpretation of the doctrine
of clear and present danger is the imminent lawless action test.
Agar main kahun XYZ should be killed. I say something which you don't really like. So you write
in CBM group k sir Hassan should be killed. Should you be sent to jail? If you have a following
of committed people who will be willingly to carry out your orders ab your speech can be
censored. If your speech is just not calling for violence but it is very likely to incite violence
against somebody then and only then your speech can be censored. Civil libertarianism will also
agree to this. They will say in this case where there is an imminent threat to someone because
of you calling to their murder or violence against them then in this censored your speech can be
censored

Should we ban violent movies, novels, TV shows and games?

Films like natural born killers, novels like stephen king rage and games like call of duty which
have inspired copycat crimes.
Being inspired from natural born killers, there was a couple who went on a shooting rampage
killed a lot of people. They replicated this crime.
The first school shooting which is known as columbine massica in high school. The teenagers
who committed that crime were inspired by the rage. In that novel there is a student who is
being bullied by other students. Then that student takes a gun to school and kills a lot of people.
A lot of terrorists and mass shooters were very fond of playing cod games. Some high school
shooters were inspired by 1st person shooter games.
So these kind of graphical depiction which has violence should be banned?
These artistic promotion can lead violence to society. They can inspire copycat crimes.
Obviously there are costs of banning it.

Normal people will not commit after watching these movie. But psychologically challenged will
be attracted to do.
If you say that gta should be banned, fast and furious should be banned, nfs should be banned,
then phir tou koi game, film tou ban hi nhi sakti. You ban superman because people will jump
from the building.
Civil libertarianism say these movies should not be banned. There is no such evidence that
watching violent movies leads to crime. There were a lot criticism on games that they are
violent. But there is no evidence that playing these games makes a person violent

James damore wrote a memo in which he criticised google hiring policies. He said that hiring
policies should be fair and should not preference women