#harm principle

Amy Wax: I think that a very clever, sneaky, nasty trick that the left has played on us again … is to subjectivize the harm principle.

So, we have John Stewart Mill with his harm principle that we should be allowed to do things and say things unless they are harmful to others.

And what the left has done is said, "Aha, but there's psychological harm. There's subjective harm." And of course, the principle of subjective harm and psychological harm sort of eats the whole space of free expression. It it destroys it. It's a nuclear option. Uh and it's very hard to counter.

-

Full video:

-

==

The philosophy of freedom of speech explores the ethical, political, and epistemological foundations of an individual's right to express thoughts, opinions, and ideas without undue restriction. It examines the balance between liberty and responsibility, questioning how far free speech should extend, what limits (if any) are justifiable, and how it impacts society.

1. Justifications for Freedom of Speech

A. Enlightenment Thought & Individual Liberty

John Locke – Argued that individuals have natural rights, including the right to express their beliefs.

Immanuel Kant – Saw freedom of speech as essential for human dignity and autonomy.

John Stuart Mill (Marketplace of Ideas) – Freedom of speech allows for truth to emerge through open discourse and debate.

B. Democracy and Open Discourse

Political Participation (Alexis de Tocqueville, Hannah Arendt) – Free speech is necessary for democratic governance, allowing citizens to critique authority and influence policy.

Accountability (Noam Chomsky) – Without free speech, governments and institutions cannot be held accountable.

C. Epistemological Justifications

Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism) – Progress in knowledge depends on the ability to challenge ideas freely.

Socrates & The Socratic Method – Inquiry and debate are fundamental to uncovering wisdom and refining understanding.

2. Challenges and Limits to Free Speech

A. Harm Principle (John Stuart Mill)

Speech should be free unless it directly harms others (e.g., inciting violence, defamation, threats).

B. Hate Speech and Social Harm

Some argue that unregulated free speech can lead to discrimination, social instability, and violence.

Philosophers like Karl Popper (Paradox of Tolerance) argue that tolerating intolerant speech can lead to the destruction of free societies.

C. Censorship and Government Control

Authoritarian vs. Liberal Models – Some societies limit speech in the name of security, morality, or national unity.

Modern Challenges – Digital censorship, misinformation, and social media regulation complicate the traditional boundaries of free speech.

3. Contemporary Debates

Freedom vs. Responsibility – Should there be legal or social consequences for harmful speech?

Big Tech and Free Speech – Do private companies like social media platforms have an obligation to uphold or restrict free speech?

Misinformation and Censorship – How do we balance free speech with the need to prevent misinformation and propaganda?

Conclusion

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, political economist, politician and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism. (20 May 1806 – 7 May 1873.)

Proponent of Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill was a leading advocate of utilitarianism, a moral philosophy originally developed by Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill expanded on Bentham's ideas, emphasizing qualitative differences in pleasures.

Author of "On Liberty": Mill's seminal work "On Liberty" (1859) is a cornerstone of liberal political philosophy. In it, he argues for the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, asserting that society should only restrict individual actions if they harm others, encapsulating this idea in what is known as the Harm Principle.

Advocate for Women's Rights: Mill was an early and passionate advocate for gender equality. In his book "The Subjection of Women" (1869), he argued for the legal and social equality of women, making a strong case against the oppression and disenfranchisement of women in Victorian society.

Influence on Political Economy: As a political economist, Mill made significant contributions to economic theory. His "Principles of Political Economy" (1848) was a comprehensive survey of economic thought and policy, covering topics such as supply and demand, labour, and the role of government in the economy. It was a standard textbook for decades.

If you support Black Live Matter, and you insist on listening to Burzum on the grounds of ‘separating the art from the artist’ - yet you feel a need to condemn other people for liking Avenged Sevenfold, despite the band being far less problematic than Burzum...

then you really need to rethink your morals. If it’s not morally wrong for you to like Burzum, then it’s not morally wrong for me to like Avenged Sevenfold. People do *not* have a moral imperative to abstain from liking a certain band simply because other people think ‘their music sucks’.

People do, however, have a moral imperative to not be a racist piece of shit - such as that of Varg Vikernes.

By being more tolerant of other people liking Burzum - and, in fact, liking Burzum yourself - than you are of other people liking Avenged Sevenfold, you are sending out a very confusing message to people.

You are conveying a message that it is more morally reprehensible to like a band ‘whose music sucks’ than it is to be a racist piece of shit, like that of Varg Vikernes. If you sincerely support Black Lives Matter, please think about it. Is this really the message that you want to send?!

Again, people do *not* have a moral imperative to abstain from liking a certain band simply because other people think ‘their music sucks’. People *do* have a moral imperative to not be a racist piece of shit, like that of Varg Vikernes.

Please think about it, if you sincerely support the Black Lives Matter cause. Thank you and have a nice day.

If you support Black Live Matter, and you insist on listening to Burzum on the grounds of ‘separating the art from the artist’ - yet you feel a need to condemn other people for liking Avenged Sevenfold, despite the band being far less problematic than Burzum...

then you really need to rethink your morals. If it’s not morally wrong for you to like Burzum, then it’s not morally wrong for me to like Avenged Sevenfold. People do *not* have a moral imperative to abstain from liking a certain band simply because other people think ‘their music sucks’.

People do, however, have a moral imperative to not be a racist piece of shit - such as that of Varg Vikernes.

By being more tolerant of other people liking Burzum - and, in fact, liking Burzum yourself - than you are of other people liking Avenged Sevenfold, you are sending out a very confusing message to people.

You are conveying a message that it is more morally reprehensible to like a band ‘whose music sucks’ than it is to be a racist piece of shit, like that of Varg Vikernes. If you sincerely support Black Lives Matter, please think about it. Is this really the message that you want to send?!

Again, people do *not* have a moral imperative to abstain from liking a certain band simply because other people think ‘their music sucks’. People *do* have a moral imperative to not be a racist piece of shit, like that of Varg Vikernes.

The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that;

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." 

An equivalent was earlier stated in France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 as, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." 

The belief "that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others" has become one of the basic principles of libertarian politics.

Okay, along with getting a new computer (complete with a keyboard that I need to be more delicate with) I’m also gonna work on changing my approach to certain issues. So, on that note, some of you might be wonder why I tend to fly off the handle when people badmouth Avenged Sevenfold - which is, admittedly, a burzerk button for me.

First off, I should clarify that I don’t have an issue with any and all criticism of Avenged Sevenfold - nor do I believe that the band is above criticism. If you’re gonna criticize the band, though - it should be about problematic things that the band members have said or done. I may agree or disagree over just how problematic such actions are, but I would always respect the person’s right to feel that way. After all, I believe that it is important to acknowledge that musicians (or celebs of any type really) are not perfect.

However, what I *don’t* cotton to are people simply bashing Avenged Sevenfold simply because they think the band’s music “sucks”. I’m quite painfully well aware of how much hate the band gets from metal elitists - so, yeah, I get sensitive about. What’s even worse is when metal elitists seem to act as if people who simply enjoy the music of Avenged Sevenfold are somehow morally reprehensible people. I just don’t get that. I’m strongly anti-authoritarian, and I believe that people should have the freedom to enjoy whatever music they like. In fact, I am a very firm believer in personal choice - as long as they don’t hurting other people.

I mean, if I was playing my Avenged Sevenfold music so loudly that it was disturbing my neighbours - then, yeah, my neighbours would certainly have a valid reason to object. Even then, it isn’t Avenged Sevenfold per se that’s the problem. It’s being inconsiderate enough to play my music to loudly to disturb the neighbours’ peace - it wouldn’t matter if it was Beethoven, Beatles, or Bieber.

The other thing that bothers me is when metal elitists who bash Avenged Sevenfold for their supposed “plagiarism” themselves hypocritically like Led Zeppelin. I think Howlin’ Wolf (who Led Zeppelin has most definitely plagiarized from) would have more reason to feel slighted by Led Zeppelin than the members of Metallica (who Avenged Sevenfold is often accused of plagiarizing from) would, seeing as Howlin’ Wolf had suffered far more financially from said plagiarism than the members of Metallica have. Furthermore, I think the members of Metallica themselves recognize that fact - and, in fact, they would probably feel insulted by the insinuation that they might (or should) think any differently.