Question

In a liberal society, writes David van Mill in "Freedom of Speech", we have found that the harm principle provides reasons for limiting free speech when doing so prevents direct harm to rights.

A. True
B. False

Answer 1

The harm principle justifies limits on free speech in instances where it causes direct harm to others, and this is true in liberal societies such as the U.S. While the Constitution strongly protects free speech, including offensive or unpopular political speech, it allows restrictions when speech incites violence, is defamatory, or presents a clear and present danger.

Step-by-step explanation:

In a liberal society, it is true that the harm principle can provide reasons for limiting free speech if such speech directly harms the rights of others. This principle, which was popularized by John Stuart Mill suggests that individual liberty should only be constrained to prevent harm to others. In the context of free speech, this means that while the Constitution typically protects offensive or unpopular speech, particularly that of a political nature, there are key exceptions where speech can be restricted, such as when it incites violence, is defamatory, or presents a clear and present danger.

For example, the U.S. upholds robust free speech rights, but these rights are not absolute. You cannot make threats against an individual's safety or engage in defamation that causes harm to a private person. Such actions are subject to legal punishment as they represent direct harm to other individuals or society at large. The balance between protecting individual rights and the larger societal good is at the heart of the harm principle's application to laws governing speech.