Friday, February 22, 2019
Highways and Protests
In On Liberty, Mill vigorously defends the right of citizens to assemble and express their views. Yet how far does that right extend? A bill in Iowa proposes making protesting on a highway a felony subject to as much as five years in prison. Its proponent cites safety concerns around the obstruction of police and fire vehicles. However, civil liberties claim it and similar laws have a chilling affect of free speech and the right to protest. What would Mill say about all this? Which side of the debate is correct (or is there some third or middle position that is correct)? Is there a right to protest even if it prevents me from getting work on time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that Mill so vigorously defends the right to assemble and express their views because no matter what, it will be beneficial to finding the truth. The reason why people protest is that they are challenging an opinion they believe is false, and propose their own opinion that they believe is true. People do not usually protest because they simply feel like it, but because they believe that there is a different truer idea that should be heard. Mill expresses the importance of expressing ideas when he says, “Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think” (Mill 32). Challenging and expressing all opinions is important firstly because it helps society progress towards the truth. Even if the viewpoint is false, it is more helpful to the truth than not saying anything at all. Similarly, another reason why it is important is because even though there are times where people make unnecessary actions as a protest, that should not be the reason to limit everyone else’s chance to be able to share the truth and contribute to the growth of society. Finally, protests allows for the challenging of ideas, which is important for society because if it reveals a new truth, it benefits society, and if not, it prevents the truth from becoming an easily disregarded common truth. Mill explains this when he writes, “however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth” (Mill 34). If ideas and truths are not challenged, they cannot be considered a living truth, but simply an unquestioned truth. As a result, all protests are beneficial no matter if it protests a truth or a false belief, thus meaning that restrictions should not be put on the right to assemble and express viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech is a tradition that is essential in the construction of America. It is something that the country takes pride in. While this law doesn’t exactly promote freedom of speech, it does not completely suppress it either. I feel that Mill would have mixed opinions about a law like this being passed. On one hand, Mill is a great advocate for freedom of speech because of the effect new ideas have/could have on our society. “If there were nothing new to be done, would human intellect cease to be necessary?” (61) A single group’s message could fuel a societal revolution. However, most movements or ideas do not have a launch pad without a major platform. Some people cannot create those platforms themselves, so shutting down and protesting on a highway allows these movements to be displayed on a larger platform which is good because it encourages growth and the freedom of expression.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, Mill expresses how freedom of expression cannot become “a nuisance to other people” (52). Therefore, shutting down a highway would cause those people to become a nuisance to people who have to be on time for an important event. This goes against one of the aspects of what Mill perceives as liberty, but, at the same time, applies to his view of an opposing aspect of liberty. In the text, Mill strongly encourages the formation of laws that prevent the harm of others. The word harm is ambiguous, but in this case could mean a variety of consequences including, losing a job, losing a job opportunity, meeting a loved one in a hospital, and the list goes on. Honestly, there is not a correct side to this debate. The state would only be suppressing where people could express their opinions and not what they say. Though similar to highways, people can stop traffic on the streets as well, so I think that there is a middle position that could satisfy everyone. Instead of preventing people from protesting on the highway, maybe people could still protest on the highway, but in a way that doesn’t block traffic, like on the shoulder or the median. It still provides the same shock value that it would if people were to shut down a highway, but it does not ‘put harm’ on anyone as well.
While the right to protest and publicly display opinions is something that Mills most definitely defends through his defense of liberty, that isn’t to say that opinions or disagreement can or should be expressed in any way. Instead, if one is to perform or restrict a protest, a line must be made between what is actually beneficial or potentially productive to society, and what might actually negatively affect others. It is of note, however, to point out that the idea of protest in itself shouldn’t be something in need of a justification: it is a simple display of liberty. As Mills suggests, without an environment and society where expression of opinion is comfortable, and the discussion and sharing of new ideas is free, then “human life would become a stagnant pool.” (61) Protest is the personification of free speech and so, since we value liberty and rights, it is something defended for the sake of progression. Furthermore, benefits of expression are not only existent in the fulfillment of liberty, but the truth, confirmation of truth, or objections that it may provide. It is only when we cross our previously stated line, to a point where the protest actively harms other individuals, that we find a justification and potential interruption is due. Although Mills very much promotes free speech, he so equally promotes the restrictions of individuals in a society who wish to do harm to others. It is for this reason that the expression of opinions through violence or force, while still forms of expression, are overshadowed and lose all potential benefit due to the negative affect of the very actions in which the freedom of speech is facilitated. However, in terms of the example of a protest on a highway, the answer is not so easy since no direct harm is being done, although I believe that the harm done indirectly is enough for such a scenario to be rightly restricted. In the scenario, while freedom of expression is being displayed, the facilitated environment is one where dangers and inconveniences exist in the form of either potential accidents, or the inconvenient to others by ‘making them late’. In the case of a potential accident, the protesting individuals are unnecessarily (against the wills and interests of others) creating an environment where excess chance for danger is present: if an accident were to occur, they would have directly done the harm. On the other hand, in the more casual case of making someone late, the act of the protest is directly forcing an inconvenience on other individuals which, while not physical harming them, harms their interests. Mills too seems to agree with this, stating that societies should restrict “injuring the interests of one another,” (73) which don’t necessarily imply direct harm, but include the harming of goals and individual ‘interests’.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the first part of this prompt (how would Mill respond), I feel that his ideology would not defend the right to protest on a highway. On page 53 of On Liberty, Mill states plainly that “[an individual] must not make himself a nuisance to other people” (Mill 53). Thus, for example, if Dr. Ialacci is trying to get to work but unexpectedly cannot do his usual commute due to protesting, the protestors are a “nuisance” to him. In short, the protestors are detrimental to the natural function of the community as well as one’s attempt to fulfill their social and or professional obligations. As Mill dives deeper into this topic (mostly in chapter four), saying that members of a community do not have the liberty to “[injure] the interests of one another [which]... ought to be considered as rights” (Mill 73). Obviously, one can debate whether or not the use of public roadways is a right (although I think it is), but it is important to acknowledge that protestors who impede one from using a certain road are indirectly and forcefully taking away the privilege/ right to use that public resource. Furthermore, Mill states in the latter part of that sentence that each individual must “[bear] his share… of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members for injury and molestation” (Mill 73). Relating this to the point in Iowa’s bill about first responders, the act of protesting on, and thus prohibiting the natural use of, roads does not only mean that those who participate are not bearing their share, but are also obstructing others from doing so. I feel Mill would agree that blocking an ambulance that is on its way to (hopefully) save a life or a police car on the way to a crime scene is not a right, since it hinders one’s protection, safety, and liberty. I am a strong proponent of protests, but I think that unless there is an oppressive government that needs to be overthrown, it is not important enough to impede the safety of others or the commitments of others to society.
ReplyDelete