Mill, Berkeley, and Free Speech
30 minute read
In a lot of ways, Berkeley is a microcosm of everything unique to Bay Area culture. Not only does it house the greatest public university in the world, but Berkeley is an encapsulation of all the good qualities intrinsic to life in the peninsula. Upon arriving, the first thing that seizes the senses would be the faint but consistent smell of marijuana throughout the streets, a hallmark of San Francisco. In Berkeley, there are local coffee shops at the corner of every block, often packed so full with college students that it would make Shanghai look spacious. Walking down the city blocks, the occasional scent of fresh brewed coffee would permeate the air, resulting in a war of smells: coffee bean versus pot; which would prevail? In the end, nobody prevails, just some weird fusion of a pot coffee smell that would lurk constantly through the day. Much to the bewilderment of many, there also exists a level of young grassroots activism that would puzzle even the most passionate of political representatives. Brimming with conviction and stationed on every block, one can find university students that are ready to go to battle, equipped with the only weapons of war they know: the clipboard and pen. Not only this, but Berkeley offers no shortage of antiquity stores and music shops; only the most experienced of veterans can navigate through the trenches of endless colored scarfs, ancient lamps, Jimi Hendrix records, and extraordinary artwork, created by Berkeley’s very own street artists. It should also come as no surprise then, that this distinctively unique city is where one of the greatest comedians of all time, Richard Pryor, got his first start. There is no other city in the world where one can encounter an African American engineer, an Asian painter, a Caucasian [Japanese Studies] major, a businessman, and a homeless woman, all colloquially discussing the topical contemporary issues of the day.
THE CITY OF BERKELEY
However, today is not one of those days in which one wanders aimlessly, waiting for the unexpected or eccentric surprises that await. Today is the scene of a very different Berkeley. A Berkeley where warfare is not waged along the bar stools of Jazz clubs, or the over the spilled coffee stains hunting for forgotten treasures in thrift stores. Today, warfare becomes synonymous with the sirens of police helicopters that screech above. Today, the coffee shops littered on the corner of every block are met not with contentious smells of pot, but with barricades and steel gates. Today, one could not seek out the idiosyncrasies that Berkeley has to offer, but must tread cautiously through the SWAT trucks, assault rifles, and vicious German Shepherds standing idly by. One would be remiss if such a scene did not galvanize the immediate shuffling of backpacks and purses, eager to capture this iconic moment in history. I can see it now. In 30 years as this photo hangs from the gold tinted walls of the Louvre, a summary: “Here I stand trepidaciously at an axis of history, frozen in time. Orwell was right. 1984 in 2017, Berkeley CA”.
What kind of event could spur a security response reminiscent of the Rodney King riots? Much to my disappointment, Godzilla did not emerge from San Francisco Bay, nor did North Korea launch an intercontinental missile across the Pacific. No here stands larger threat, more pernicious than all calamities that precede it, yearning to test the limits of our sanity. This insidious force, one that would drive mankind towards its existential knees, would appear from its slumber and cast a shadow over the city of Berkeley. This creature, which had been nefariously plotting for years, finally manifests under the guise of another name: Ben Shapiro. Is this the name you picked for yourself Ben? Or should I call you proper, ‘Ba'al Zabul’?
Looking around, I was pleasantly surprised how many of my fellow brothers and sisters in arms had come to also face this terror head on. As I trekked onward past the security perimeter and towards Zellerbach Hall, there stood a regal figure, a Joan of Arc like heroine that sought to battle back the darkness. Surrounding her, steadfast in conviction, posed these brave soldiers of the night. Similar to I, they also are keen of sight and sharp in wit, as to see through this superficially layered exoskeleton of a 5 foot 6 inch Jew. I decided to strike a conversation with one such honorable man, who chanted along the lyrics of ancient hymns: "Racists go home! Racists go home!”.
I asked, “What do you think of this Ben Shapiro?” He says that Ben is someone who spews hate speech and is representative of an ‘alt right’ culture that promulgates racism and misogyny. Fair enough I thought to myself, that certainly is a plausible opinion to hold. There are definitely times where Ben Shapiro may make vapid or vacuous generalizations about characteristically disenfranchised groups that could be construed as having a racial element. I certainly do not think such a character is devoid of any faults or illogical presuppositions. Pressing forward, I then asked, “What parts of his rhetoric do you find most troubling?” He responds that he hasn’t heard his views directly. I countered, “Don’t you think its important to engage with what he actually says so you can determine whether or not his speech can be deemed malicious and disparaging towards minorities?” He puts it bluntly: No, his ideology is inherently misinformed and incorrect. I don’t need to listen to it to understand what he spews is wrong. Understanding what the brevity of his response meant, I thanked him for his time and left. My attention then turned to one such heretic. Approaching the officers cautiously, he asked ‘Where is the entrance to the event? I have a ticket’ and motioned inconspicuously. The officers politely redirected him to where he would need to go, and he went about his way. Just then, a shout from the crowd of the masses, “Hey, that guy has a ticket!” Like sharks smelling blood, the eerie motion of fifty heads turning together in unison all fixated on one direction. They began to shout and a few followed from the crowd. Breathing an apathetic sigh, I went about my way.
“In a lot of ways, Berkeley is a microcosm of everything unique to Bay Area culture... and in a lot of ways, Berkeley is a macrocosm of everything wrong in American political culture.”
Reader, I do not wish to make you believe that it is the students that stand valiantly together, fighting resolutely for their beliefs that I criticize. On the contrary, regardless of my political proclivities, these activists are freely exercising one of the most important functions this democracy provides: freedom of expression. More so, my contention lies with the underlying processes that underpin what I identify to be: a civic culture with a reluctance towards engaging earnestly towards the spectrum of beliefs. The individual I had a conversation with is unfortunately representative of these changing times in the political landscape. What was concerning wasn’t the intransigent attitude of an individual unwilling to compromise, but the fact that this man had already resigned to his beliefs. He had retreated within his ideological sphere, thinking that he already possessed the irrefutable truth. He was resolute that such opinions, reprehensible in their nature, should not be taken to consideration. They should fall continuously on deft ears. His unshakable resolve, coupled with a sanctimonious attitude: clearly this man had omnipotence of the world around him. There is no need to entertain different viewpoints insofar that they were already incorrect and misguided. Why listen to wrong answers when I already have the right ones?
This is not to say that this phenomena is solely indicative of the culture in progressivism. We see all too well these great conservative bastions of freedom, these guardians of liberty towards the common man who wave American flags with the right hand, fingers crossed behind their backs with the left. The patriots we deserve I say! Those who champion the ideals of free speech and free expression, only so quick to renounce that very same principle the moment their beliefs are put under scrupulous examination. Freedom you say? I know no such thing when you disrespect the flag! Let us indulge on the perspectives of all citizens; after all that is how one creates a vigorous and effective electorate! Well, maybe except basketball players with high school educations. We are the party that represents logic and reason, and celebrities aren’t usually provocative or accomplished in political comprehension. Won’t you take off the masks you wear? Can you stop this facade of heroism? May I ask these fake supermen, who dawn on cloaks laced red, white and blue, are you sure you haven’t mistaken them for you mother’s curtain drapes? In the end, is that fierce patriotism you brandish just another word? What word was it again? Ah, political convenience.
Be that as it may, such hypocrisy of the right is no justification towards the same actions of the left. With increasing polarization, Americans from across the aisle fail to even agree on basic facts. And if such debilitating trends in political culture are to be foregone and ignored, then what becomes of development, of progress? The consequence: an adherence not towards the foundations of philosophical or political inquiry, but towards ‘rightness’ and ‘victory’ in polemical war. Shall we encourage this propagation? Shall we fulfill this ‘duty’ incumbent on us? One that cedes discourse in favor of shelter, debate in favor of righteousness? The significance of freedom of expression isn’t in the autonomy that one has, when faced with heterodox positions, to conveniently cover one’s ears and fail to listen to anything worthwhile, but to actively engage with such views, precisely because they are different. It is this engagement that spurs not only a more dynamic society, but also one that can arrive at the truth, by thoroughly testing such perspectives against all lines of inquiry. With an emerging generation which have begun to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of its predecessors, freedom of speech has once again been thrust upon precarious grounds, and into the highly scrutinized spotlight of contemporary discussion. John Stuart Mill, in one of the most influential political texts of the 19th century, On Liberty, writes of the importance in allowing all opinion to flourish in the public domain. In what he refers to as ‘liberty of thought’ and ‘liberty of conscience’, Mill provides a utilitarian argument on the basis that freedom of expression, regardless of its truth value, provides a worthwhile and substantive benefit towards humanity. Mill delineates between two facets of opinion: when suppressed opinion is wrong, and when such opinion is right.
The Harm Principle
The central tenets of Mill’s argument on free expression is predicated on a fundamental principle he introduces. Simply put, it is the guiding philosophical foundation of modern day libertarian thought. As J.S Mill states,
“That the only purpose for which governmental 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. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.”
One possible rebuttal to this argument is that whatever an individual does, always has consequences. Take the perpetual drug abuser from down the street. His actions may seem to be harmful only towards himself, according to Mill, but what of the ostracization of his family and friends? What of the detrimental effects his consumerism has on the promulgation of a black market industry wrought with violence and criminality? Additionally, as many of my contemporaries may suggest, what of the deleterious psychological effects that persistent verbal abuse or hate speech can have on an individual’s well being that cannot be shown physically?
First Mill draws a distinction between ‘harm’ and ‘offense’. That is, if someone is merely being cantankerous or antagonistic when it comes to discussion, that alone does not suffice as requisite harm. Merely being offended is not a standard for the imposition of speech. Mill is cognizant that certain mental or psychological harm is possible, but it must meet a higher threshold in which it can be constituted as ‘harmful’; it must infringe on the important interests that individual have rights to.
“The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion though not by law.”
Secondly, Mill employs necessary and sufficient conditions in accessing whether an action should have legal recourse. In an example, for one to be considered a ‘good driver’ a necessary condition would be the need to obey traffic laws. But is that a ‘sufficient’ condition towards being a good driver? Does merely obeying traffic laws satisfy the traits that ‘good drivers’ should possess? A good driver must not only obey traffic laws, but also must be able to adjust to traffic conditions, make sure passengers are comfortable, etc. The same can be said when gauging whether or not an action should be deemed unlawful. Just because an action may be considered harmful for others, thereby satisfying a necessary condition of government imposition, one must also consider other criteria that would make such a law justifiable. In Mill’s case, that law would need to maximize the utility of the community and towards the overall benefit of society.
“It must by no means be supposed, because damage, or probability of damage, to the interests of others can alone justify the interference of society, that therefore it always does justify such interference.”
[There are more complexities in the Harm Principle that will be explored in the future. For the sake of understanding Mill’s argument on free speech, only an introduction is provided.]
Why Listen? When Repressed Opinion Is Right.
For those who sit comfortably on top ivory towers of truth, pervasive with sycophants in every ear, what strength it must take to hide dormant in your caves and test such opinions against the weight of the world! The audacity of these contemptuous characters, who claim truth valuable in itself without challenge! But what if the opinion we have repressed is true? What if the oracles and seers that we have devoutly impressed upon all this time, were peasants clothed in aristocracy, jesters disguised as scholars? The world has lost then, the opportunity to exchange error for truth. But what does truth even mean? Empiricism alone can never tell of the whole story, without facts to bring about its meaning. Similarly, facts cannot stand on its legs, without comments and experience to hold it up. Truth in itself, has no value. The whole strength and advantage of human judgement, in its fallibility, is that civilization can correct upon its mistakes. And those individuals who display true confidence, it is only because they have kept their ears and eyes open, entertaining all directions of criticisms and testing such opinions against all who oppose them. How can we be so sure what we know is the truth, if that truth never is allowed the opportunity to contend with other truths? Is that not the foundation of scientific inquiry?
“Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side”
If one would document the course of historical development, when the majority has often gotten it wrong, they must enjoy scribing for an eternity. If we are to presume certainty without contention, we are also presuming infallibility without thought. Even if dissenting opinions contain a sliver of truth, they should take precedence above all else in allowing it into public discourse. Much like the effort a painter that goes about recreating a scene, every fragment of memory, every smell or sound no matter how small, leads to more captivating, accurate illustration. The pursuit of truth is much the same. Every impression that can add to a discussion, may assist in forming a clearer and more accurate perception of the canvas. Although we might fail in our endeavor to find the complete answer, we have done the best that human reason affords to us, and have pushed our cognitive faculties forward. If we are to refer to ourselves as explorers, eagerly searching for the right answers, how can we miss the opportunity for progress?
However this peculiar evil, in the suppression of any thought that encourages skepticism against the common creed, deprives the human race, posterity in all, of a much greater potential.
“But it is not the minds of heretics that are deteriorated most, by the ban placed on all inquiry which does not end in the orthodox conclusions. The greatest harm done is to those who are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped, and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy. Who can compute what the world loses in the multitude of promising intellects combined with timid characters, who dare not follow out any bold, vigorous, independent train of thought, lest it should land them in something which would admit of being considered irreligious or immoral?”
To those who encourage supposition, what great thinker does not recognize first and foremost, the role of greatness demands that one follow their intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. Think of the role of such great iconoclasts, who have brought forth the moral ambiguities in a culture that has taken truth for granted. If humanity wishes to go past the boundaries of what it deems conventionally acceptable, to explore what which is uncomfortable, such requires the cultivation of a virtue that holds those who think differently in higher esteem than those who think the same. It is most convenient to do otherwise. Perhaps Socrates should have groveled and begged on the floor of the Greek Senate for powerful men to sympathetically spare his life? After all, Mrs. Parks already had the laborious task of prepping supper, perfectly contented she should be to fulfill her duty as a housewife. What great advantage has conformity brought to civilization other than to tell sheep which herd to follow? ‘Perhaps there will still be great thinkers in an atmosphere of mental enslavement, but there will never be, in that atmosphere, an intellectually active people.’ Those who accomplish that which drives humanity forward never proceed from the footsteps of normality. Follow where your intuitions may lead you. Challenge yourself to think dangerously. Build your foundations at the edge of cliffs. This is what it means to think!
Why Listen? When Repressed Opinion Is Wrong.
But let us say these initial premonitions are true. Our suspicions that the heretics and provocateurs indeed represent falsehoods. Why should lend we our ears to those who give credence to such erroneous beliefs? Nothing of worthwhile substance has ever been formed solely on the basis of certainty. I ask to test your own beliefs against the grain and see how far your intellectual journey takes you. To do justice towards argumentation, towards strengthening belief in what is true, requires one to hear falsehoods from those who earnestly believe them. One must be challenged along all avenues of thought, to hear dissent in its most plausible and persuasive form. It is from these antagonisms, the reconciliation of truth and falsehood, in which a great thinker can begin to form a clearer picture. To dissuade expression of opinion on the basis of fallacy is to stifle intellectual virtue altogether, and rob the development of a thinker the opportunity to impress upon all aspects of a subject, to progress forward having knowingly conquered apprehension and all.
“For people who know to hold your beliefs against the grain. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them.”
Picture a epistemic utopia, one in which it is impossible to formulate false beliefs. Under this tutelage, we would have nothing but true beliefs, but would it be clear that we really know anything? In that, does simply knowing what is true make us good thinkers? If one were to ask a high school classroom: do you believe in equality? A great number of students would agree that equality is a positive good for society. But if we were to prod around the edges, and ask why, how many students would fail to articulate the reasoning behind their beliefs? One might say that good thinkers are a requirement for society to allow freedom of speech. I ask, how does one exactly become a good thinker, without an environment that allows the engagement of those who possess heterodox views? So for those who erroneously equate truth for knowledge, to even possess good thinking at all, is incumbent on the responsibility of those who proclaim themselves ‘free thinkers’ to seek out sophistry and falsehoods in opposition, to contend with uncomfortability. And is the lifelong pursuit of anything, let alone one enveloped in intellectual and scholarly rigor, supposed to be comfortable?
“Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know; they have never known themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess.”
Finally, in every sense of the Mill-ian tradition, I ask the reader to challenge what parts of Mill’s argument may be suspect. What parts do you agree with? Mill claims that airing false opinions allows that falsehood to be made available for inspection and corrected. Yet, do we have certainty that the wider platform given to conspiracy theorists or extremism actually reduces the influence of those who spout such opinions? Does the reach of someone like Alex Jones actually create more sensibility, or does it contribute to those who hold false beliefs? Does the repetition of the line ‘jet fuel can’t melt steel beams’ turn more people off to conspiracies or contributes to the growing apprehension surrounding the events of 9/11? Perhaps you could also say that the ‘harm principle’ in itself, is not a sufficient argument for the legitimate exercise of government power? Maybe the government should go farther in its duty to limit that which it deems harmful, such as certain aspects of offense.
John Stuart Mill
usually cited as J. S. Mill, was a British philosopher, political economist, and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy. Dubbed "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century", Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control. As a member of the liberal party, Mill was also the first Parliamentary member to call for universal women’s suffrage.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is to this day studied most for his work on ethics, which codified utilitarianism, one of the three major philosophical moral systems, along with virtue ethics and deontology. However, he had important political influence, too, as a British progressive, and also codified the empirical philosophy of science. His contributions to both democratic progress and the philosophy of science were so influential that they are often taken for granted politically and in definitions of science, without a perceived need to trace their authorship.
“Life has a certain flavor for those who have fought and risked all that the sheltered and protected can never experience.”
“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. “
