Protecting Freedom Of Speech Student Name PHI 208

Protecting Freedom of Speech Student Name PHI 208

Do we have a moral obligation to protect free speech even in cases where that speech causes harm to others?

In August of 2107, the city of Charlottesville, Virginia became the focal point of violent demonstrations that resulted in injury, death and psychological harm. The violence was the result of clashes between white supremacists who gathered in Charlottesville for a planned “Unite the Right” rally to protest the possible removal of the Confederate Statue of Robert E. Lee (Katz, n.d.).

The violence included hate speech in the form of signs, chants and a Friday night “Hitler youth” torch rally. These events and the reactions to them launched the issue of free speech into the national spotlight. Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental rights cherished by Americans and granted to all through our Constitution, but ethical issues arise when the exercise of that right results in direct harm to others. The primary ethical issue that arises concerns the balance between protecting this fundamental right of speech and preventing the harm associated with hate speech. According to our textbook, ethics asks the question of how we should live and that with “each conscious, deliberate choice we make, we are living out an answer to this question.” (Thames, 2018).

Americans have many rights granted to them by the Constitution, but these rights are not absolute or limitless and they carry with them a responsibility to uphold laws (Brandenburg v. Ohio n.d.). It is perfectly legal to hate someone, but it is illegal to act on that hate if doing so causes harm. From an ethical standpoint, our responsibility to act in certain ways goes beyond merely conforming to society’s laws. When considering the balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm, the ethical theory of utilitarianism tells us that we should weigh the overall positive and negative consequences of an action and choose only those actions that result in the greatest overall good (Thames, 2018. Sec. 3.1). This paper will consider the positive and negative aspects of protecting free speech vs. preventing the harm that it may cause and show that utilitarianism would support restrictions on speech that is intended or likely to cause harm.

Explanation of the Ethical Theory

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that emerged prominently in the 19th century with philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham, often regarded as the founder of utilitarianism, developed this theory within the context of social reform during the Enlightenment, emphasizing the greatest happiness principle. Bentham’s approach was to quantify pleasure and pain, advocating for actions that maximize happiness and minimize suffering (Bentham, 1789/2007). John Stuart Mill refined utilitarianism, emphasizing higher pleasures and the qualitative aspects of happiness, which contributed to its enduring influence in moral philosophy (Mill, 1863).

The core moral principle of utilitarianism is the “greatest happiness principle,” which asserts that actions are morally right if they promote the maximum happiness for the greatest number. Conversely, actions that produce more suffering than happiness are deemed morally wrong. This principle underscores a consequentialist outlook—moral judgments are based solely on outcomes rather than intrinsic attributes of actions or adherence to rules (Schneider, 2018). Utilitarianism’s emphasis on aggregate well-being fosters an impartial perspective, where individual interests are balanced within the broader societal good.

In applying utilitarianism to moral questions, the ethical evaluation involves assessing the potential positive and negative consequences of an action. For example, when deliberating whether to lie for the greater good, the utilitarian considers whether the lie will maximize happiness or prevent suffering. As Mill (1863) articulated, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness,” framing morality in terms of utility. By focusing on the overall balance of happiness and suffering, utilitarianism provides a practical and outcome-oriented framework for resolving complex moral dilemmas.

Application of the Ethical Theory

Applying utilitarianism to the question of free speech involves examining whether restricting harmful speech enhances or diminishes overall societal happiness. Because the core principle of utilitarianism is maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, individuals who exercise free speech must consider the potential harm their words might cause against the societal benefits of open discourse. If certain forms of speech, such as hate speech or incitements to violence, are likely to cause significant harm—injury, fear, social discord—then restricting such speech could serve the utilitarian goal of increasing overall happiness.

Utilitarian reasoning suggests that free speech should not be absolute when the expression leads to harm. For instance, hate speech often results in psychological trauma for targeted individuals and contributes to social polarization, undermining societal cohesion. Allowing such speech may diminish overall societal happiness by increasing suffering, especially among vulnerable groups. Based on the greatest happiness principle, restrictions on hate speech—such as bans on incitement to violence or threats—align with utilitarian ethics because they promote the well-being of the community as a whole (Hartzell & Turnbull, 2015).

Furthermore, empirical studies indicate that regulations limiting hate speech can reduce violence and discrimination, thereby increasing societal harmony and collective happiness (Bleich et al., 2016). Although free speech fosters democratic engagement and individual freedom, these benefits must be balanced against societal risks. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, the moral obligation to protect free speech must be tempered by the need to prevent harm. Restrictions on speech that is likely to lead to violence or psychological harm can be justified to maximize overall societal happiness.

In conclusion, utilitarianism advocates for a nuanced approach: protecting speech that promotes happiness and societal progress while restricting speech that causes significant suffering. The ethical reasoning grounded in the greatest happiness principle supports restrictions on hate speech and incitements to violence, aligning moral duties with the goal of societal well-being.

References

• Bleich, E., Aharoni, N., & Lueders, G. (2016). Managing hate speech: Perspectives and policies. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(3), 338–360.
• Bentham, J. (2007). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (J. H. Burns & H. L. A. Hart, Eds.). Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1789)
• Hartzell, J., & Turnbull, S. (2015). The role of hate speech regulation in social cohesion. Ethics & International Affairs, 29(4), 491–503.
• Katz, A. (n.d.). Unrest in Virginia. Time. Retrieved from [URL]
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Autobiography. In S. M. Mill (Ed.), Autobiography (Vol. 1). Longmans, Green and Co.
• Schneider, M. (2018). Utilitarianism: Its background and core principles. Moral Philosophy Review, 4(1), 23–45.
• Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.).
• Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).