{"id":420,"date":"2017-10-25T06:12:11","date_gmt":"2017-10-25T06:12:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.dwrl.utexas.edu\/liberrimus\/?p=420"},"modified":"2017-10-25T07:21:50","modified_gmt":"2017-10-25T07:21:50","slug":"mill-on-free-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.dwrl.utexas.edu\/liberrimus\/2017\/10\/25\/mill-on-free-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"Mill on Free Speech"},"content":{"rendered":"

Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the 1st<\/sup> amendment, it is an opportunity to express personal views and ideas without the risk of detriment to ones quality or quantity of utility. Recently, a Colorado Cub Scout was denied his right to freedom of speech after he asked a controversial question to a senator. The scout in question, Ames Mayfield, asked a question regarding gun control in the wake of the recent Las Vegas shootings that questioned the views of the senator. The leader of Mayfield\u2019s Cub Scout Pack contacted his mother to discuss that her son was \u201c\u2026no longer welcome back to the den.\u201d. This action violates Mayfield\u2019s liberty because his question did not cause harm anyone and therefore did not warrant any negative consequences.<\/p>\n

I argue in my essay On Liberty<\/em>, \u201cThat the only purpose for which power can be fully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.\u201d The den leader violated this principle when he kicked Mayfield out of the pack solely because his personal views differed from Mayfied\u2019s. Although I do not generally apply these principles to children, in this instance I believe it is still relevant because Mayfield, though young, acted in a mature manner and worked with the assistance of his mother (an adult). The den leader communicated with Mayfield\u2019s mother in an attempt to stifle Mayfield but in this situation Mayfield did not need to be protected from his actions as his speech did not harm himself or others, it merely posed a question.<\/p>\n

The den leader did not act in a utilitarian way when he attempted to force Mayfield out of his troop in response to Mayfield\u2019s exercise of his right to free speech. I believe that the leader took away Mayfield\u2019s utility when he removed him from the troop. Furthermore, since utility is integral to all ethical questions, the den leader acted unethically. He also violated the Greatest Happiness Principle discussed in Utilitarianism<\/em> by removing part of Mayfield\u2019s greatest quantity and quality of happiness. It is my belief that freedom of speech is an important part of liberty and, unless harmful to other\u2019s utility, it must be protected and allowed.<\/p>\n