After World War II, laws were passed in Germany that banned public denial of the Holocaust and public appreciation of Nazi Germany. Several states in Germany also ban Nazi organizations, claiming they are destructive and their messages are destructive to the foundations of Germany. Most members of these organizations, such as The Immortals, claim to be sought after by police unfairly due to the post-war laws. Members are forced to stay in hiding and demonstrations are often referred to as "flash protests," where thousands of Neo-Nazis gather and make their public outcry, and then disperse within 15 minutes. An example can be seen below.
So what does Mill have to do with all of this? He is for absolute freedom of expression, something that is denied in Germany to pro-Nazi people and organizations. Uwe Dreisch, a former leader of a banned neo-Nazi group states,
"We want to protect our culture, our country, our religion. In Britain, you're also proud of your country, but here I, as a German, am a second-class citizen. This is because we live with eternal war guilt here in Germany. Others get preferential treatment, not us Germans. Those outside here who say...[we are] evil Nazis, how would they know? They're afraid to talk to us. They just try to ban us."And Mill would agree with Uwe, saying
"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."When Germany tries to eliminate the opinions of Nazis from the public arena, Mill would argue that they are doing an injustice to society. These organizations, though they may be wrong, are helping society by introducing other aspects in which we can see the world. Even if wrong, the fact that they are wrong helps us see what the real truth is in this world. But this is where Mill fails and where Germany succeeds.
You see, banning Nazism in Germany isn't doing the nation an injustice. Edmund Burke, a different political philosopher that we have talked about in class has a famous quote.
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."Nazism has been accepted, attempted, implemented, and has failed. The destruction Nazi Germany created was the true injustice to the world. With it, we were able to see the "clearer perception and livelier impression of truth" that Mill speaks of. The problem with Mill is that once the truth has been released, no action upon it is done. The ability for people to think the Holocaust was just a hoax allows for a repeat of the destruction in the future. This does nothing to help further society. This is why unrestricted free speech can be a problem to society
One drawback to this is when someone asks the question: who decides if an idea or philosophy is good or bad? The answer is almost always government, something that causes a great controversy, for who is to say the government itself is not wrong or corrupt? To that, I point out the difference between restricting political disagreement and speech entirely. There must always be the ability to protest government and laws, for that is a basic principle to ensure the government does not have absolute control over its citizens.A different problem arises when we speak of religion and science. In science and religion, nothing is certain. There is no religion that can be proven correct, and therefore no nation should ever have laws forcing belief or denying criticism of any religion. Science has different, yet similar characteristics. While we may "know" things are certain at the moment, they could very well be proven wrong in a few years. It is because of this that we cannot force belief in science nor deny criticism of science. For example, it was common knowledge around 1500 B.C.E that the world was flat, yet the Greeks proved otherwise several hundred years later. While it wasn't popularly accepted, as is much of the science of today, it was what we now know to be true. Isaac Newton created his models for gravity during the age of the enlightenment, yet even the father of calculus was wrong, for Einstein theorized and was later proven correct that gravity is not instantaneous and also that light is affected by gravity. All of these things are supposed "truths" at the current moment, yet can be proven wrong at any point in time. The entire purpose of science is to question the validity of an aspect of the world. A denial of science or forced acceptance would go against the entire basis upon which science is advanced.
In short, restrictions on freedom of speech can be put in place when they are to the benefit of society after it is evident that damage will be done. Religion and Science are specific exceptions to this, as well as the ability to protest laws or truths that the government puts into place, for the ability to protest these laws must be preserved.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting blog post! I really enjoyed reading it, and I thought it was really relevant to ideas about Freedom of Speech today. It is definitely dangerous for certain ideas to be expressed. People should be entitled to say their opinions and what they think; this is a basic human right. The problem with this, though, is that people don't realize that free speech can sometimes directly interfere with other forms or basic rights.
For instance, using your example of the Nazis, they should have the right to freely express their opinions. The problem with this, though, is that by promoting the imprisonment and death of the Jews, they are directly impeding on Jewish people's right to have freedom. Because of this, people need to pick which right they believe should take more presidence, and it's pretty reasonable to conclude the ability for one to be free is more important than another's ability to say people should be imprisoned and die.
Free speech is complicated because it's a gray area. Even though it's supposed to be guaranteed, it can directly interfere with the freedoms instilled by other basic rights. Therefore, some forms of speech should be inhibited while others should be allowed. The difficulty with this is that, even religious and science freedoms can cause serious danger and harm to others. Because of this, evaluating whether opinions and expressions are acceptable or dangerous must be done on an individual basis, giving each one individual consideration as to whether it's appropriate or not.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteThis post was very well done. This totally relates to how things are with freedom of speech. What people say and think is something that you are entitled to and is a right we have as humans. Like you said with the Nazis thought they used this in a horrible way by wanting to influence the killing of Jews Also with them trying to kill Jews they went to imprison them and out them in death camps where they were tortured and burned. This is when as people we have to decide wither its ok for all people to have this right especially when they promote things like that. Me personally as bad as things are I think we are all entitled to what we want to say so yes even if it’s bad to us to them its them it’s a good message and what they stand for. Also some messages are based on religion so they have to speak their beliefs. These beliefs though sometimes are dangerous and can sometimes cause harm in the community. I love the job tyou did and great comparison this one will really get you thinking
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting and thought provoking read. I second guessed my opinion on your argument many times before i was confident in expressing it on the blog (your argument was very compelling!). I do not believe that censoring certain opinions should be within the scope of a government's power. I am against pragmatic approaches to politics such as yours because I do believe in principles and I do believe that adhering to a proper set of principles produces the most successful societies. Having said this, I still hold on to Mill's assertion that free speech is a necessity in all situations.
I struggled to find a reason why censoring free speech in a situation such as this is not only a case of government overstepping its bounds, but also could have a negative effect on society. In so many cases throughout history has a government suppressed ideologically based groups. In many cases, the suppression was successful, but when an ideology is able to rally enough believers, terrible things can happen. Although Naziism is a terrible and vicious ideology, suppressing its opinions from the public arena is like playing with fire. A government must allow ideologies such as this to be stomped out in the public arena (properly dealing with those who act on the ideas of course), to prevent a large enough underground following to accumulate, capable of toppling the suppressive government.