Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
MILL'S VIEWS ON CENSORSHIP
John Stuart Mill also championed freedom of expression. He gave four reasons why
freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression of opinion, were necessary.
First, none of us is infallible. All of us are capable of error. If we prevent someone
from voicing their opinion, we may actually be silencing the voice of truth.
Second, while the opinion expressed by someone may be erroneous, it may yet
contain a kernel of truth. In general, the majority opinion is not the whole truth. We
ought to let all opinions be voiced so that all parts of the truth are heard.
Third, even if the majority opinion should happen to be the whole truth, it is in
the clash of ideas that this truth is rationally tested and validated. The whole truth left
untested is simply a prejudice.
Fourth, an opinion that has been tested in the fire of a free and open discourse is
more likely to have a “vital effect on the character and conduct” [51, p. 61].
Therefore, Mill, like Kant, fundamentally supported the free exchange of ideas, with
the conviction that good ideas would prevail over bad ones. Applying their philosophy
to the World Wide Web, it seems they would support the free exchange of opinions and
oppose any kind of government censorship of opinions.
MILL'S PRINCIPLE OF HARM
However, a lack of government censorship can also lead to harm. Under what circum-
stances should the government intervene? Mill proposed the principle of harm as a way
of deciding when an institution should intervene in the conduct of an individual.
PRINCIPLE OF HARM
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm
to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is
not a sufficient warrant.” [51, p. 12]
In other words, the government should not get involved in the private activities
of individuals, even if the individuals are doing something to harm themselves. Only
if individuals' activities are harming other people should the government step in.
The principle of harm can be used to explain the position of most Western demo-
cratic governments with respect to censoring pornographic material depicting adults.
Some ethicists conclude it is not wrong for adults to view pornography depicting adults.
Others hold that this activity is immoral. If the activity is immoral, it is more certain the
harm is being done to the individual consumer; less certain is how much harm is being
done to other people. Hence the principle of harm can be used as an argument why the
government should not be trying to prevent adults from using pornography depicting
adults.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search