forked from twu-fhss/phil210-GX
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathu3.qmd
157 lines (85 loc) · 12.5 KB
/
u3.qmd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
# Free Speech and its Limits
## Overview {.unnumbered}
Welcome to Unit 3!
In this unit we are turning our attention to the ethics of free speech and expression. You have probably noticed how deeply people value and appreciate the right to free speech. Many, in fact, would believe they, and their society, had lost something profoundly important if they ever lost this right. In many countries, the right to free speech is seen as one of the foundations of society, as virtually an unquestioned cultural assumption. Those who dare to challenge, or even question, it do so at their peril. In other words, it is a foundational right upon which we base many other rights. Perhaps you’ve wondered why this is so and how things got to be this way. How did the right to free speech gain such an elevated standing in people’s minds? Moreover, should it ever be limited or is it simply an absolute principle with no exceptions? If it should be limited, when, and why? What could possibly be so important that it would call for a limitation on one’s free speech?
Let’s begin by exploring our own personal views on the matter. Suppose someone you know believes something with which you and many of your friends flatly **disagree.** Should they have the right to express this belief? Most of us would probably answer, yes, to this question. What, however, if you and your companions don’t simply *disagree* with this viewpoint but actually find it *disturbing?* Should the right to free speech and expression still hold? Suppose it’s worse than that. Suppose you, and plenty of people you know, actually find this viewpoint *disgusting?* What then? Should the person still be given the right to express this view? One last ‘what if’ question: what if you believe the expression of this viewpoint would be genuinely *dangerous* to some person or group of people in your society? Does the right to free speech guarantee their right to express the view even in this case?
The point of these ‘what if’ scenarios is to test our views on this right and to raise a critical question for this unit: how far does the right to free speech go? We will see that this question cannot be answered without first establishing the basis for free speech in the first place. Notice that our basis for free speech cannot simply be that the government decrees this right, since the very question at stake is what moral basis governments have doing so. Our readings for this unit will expose us both to a proposed *moral foundation* for the right to free speech and a case for certain *limitations* to be placed upon it. Once we understand the arguments made for both, we will be in a position to reflect on them and decide whether we would draw the lines in different places than these authors have.
### Topics {.unnumbered}
This unit is divided into the following topics:
1. A Moral Foundation for Free Speech
2. Pornography and Limits on Free Speech
### Learning Outcomes {.unnumbered}
When you have completed this unit, you should be able to:
- Explain John Stuart Mill’s four grounds for the freedom of expression.
- Describe limitations on freedom of expression suggested by John Stuart Mill and his rationale for such limits.
- Discuss why some who still favour freedom of speech believe pornography should not be freely distributed.
- Show how John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle is foundational to the question of when and why limits should be placed on free speech.
### Learning Activities {.unnumbered}
Here is a checklist of learning activities you will benefit from in completing this unit. You may find it useful for planning your work.
- Read the following articles of the textbook “Readings in Moral Philosophy” by Jonathan Wolff.
- John Stuart Mill’s article on free speech and its limits (p. 252-268)
- Catherine Mackinnon’s article on pornography, civil rights, and free speech (p.268-278)
- Read and analyze the “Controversial Speaker” Case Study
- Take the ungraded quiz to review important concepts.
::: {.note icon="true"}
Working through course activities will help you to meet the learning outcomes and successfully complete your assessments.
:::
### Assessment {.unnumbered}
See the Assessment section in Moodle for assignment details and due dates.
### Resources {.unnumbered}
Here are the resources you will need to complete this unit.
- Wolff, Jonathan. *An Introduction to Moral Philosophy*. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.
- Other online resources will be provided in the unit.
## A Moral Foundation for Free Speech
Is free speech merely a personal preference, something we happen to like or prefer? Or is something we have a genuine moral right to possess? If so, it will require a moral basis, a set of reasons for thinking our society ought to have and protect this right. Furthermore, if we don’t know why we ought to have this right, we also have no way of deciding if, when, or why it should ever be limited. Once its basis is known, we can then consider whether a certain practice or idea would constitute an exception to this basis or go beyond its mandate. Our first reading by John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth-century British philosopher who is sometimes referred to as the apostle of liberty, sets out a classical foundation for the right to free speech. In this classical article, Mill argued that minority views in a society must be given the right to be expressed, whether people believe they are true or false, and that we are all worse off if they are restricted. It will be important for us to catch Mill’s reasons for this position because they will be useful in answering the follow-up question, namely, should free speech ever be limited.
### Activity: Read, Watch and Reflect
::: {.learning-activity}
In the first activity, you are asked to read John Stuart Mill’s article on free speech and its limits in pages 252-268 of your textbook *“Readings in Moral Philosophy”* by Jonathan Wolff. As you read, take notes in your Learning Journal, defining key terms and explaining key concepts.
Next, choose from the following videos to learn more about key terms from this topic.
[Watch: *Mill "On Liberty" - Freedom & Empire | Philosophy Tube*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wF2aIQM4M8){target="_blank"} <!-- Auto title, auto embed-->
{{< video https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_wF2aIQM4M8 >}}
In this second video, we look at John Stuart Mill's influential work "On Liberty" in which he argues for the importance of individual liberties, especially freedom of opinion and expression.
[Watch: *John Stuart Mill - On Liberty*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWZrHUvhXcw){target="_blank"} <!-- Auto title, auto embed-->
{{< video https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QWZrHUvhXcw >}}
:::
## Pornography and Limits on Free Speech
If we agree that the right to free speech has a sound moral basis, does this mean it is an absolute right with no exceptions? Or could there be certain limitations placed on it even while maintaining it as a genuine right? In other words, how far does this right go? If certain limitations are legitimate, what are they and what basis could be given for them? *Disagreement* appears to be a weak basis for limiting free speech. The fact that some people *disagree* with something you or I believe hardly seems like a proper reason to limit our free expression of that belief. Virtually every view point has its detractors and if we followed this principle consistently, it would lead to the collapse of the right to free speech. If, however, *disagreement* does not constitute a good reason for limiting free speech, then what does? In our second reading, we turn to this question. Catherine MacKinnon, an American lawyer and activist, presents us with a case in which she believes free speech ought to be limited, namely, pornography. She will argue both that free speech is important but that it should be limited in this one case. It will be important for us to follow her argument for both claims and consider our own stance toward them.
### Activity: Read, Watch and Reflect
::: {.learning-activity}
Read the article by Catherine Mackinnon on pornography, civil rights, and free speech, in pages 268-278 of your textbook *“Readings in Moral Philosophy”* by Jonathan Wolff. As you read, take notes in your Learning Journal, defining key terms and explaining key concepts.
Next, watch the following videos to learn more about key terms from this topic.
[Watch: *Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeeq0qaEaLw){target="_blank"} <!-- Auto title, auto embed-->
{{< video https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Zeeq0qaEaLw >}}
In this second video, Craig talks about Free Speech, its importance and some of the more controversial aspects of free speech - like hate speech.
[Watch: *The Pornography Phenomenon - Catharine MacKinnon*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdfPLJDmEIw){target="_blank"} <!-- Auto title, auto embed-->
{{< video https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/kdfPLJDmEIw >}}
:::
### Activity: Controversial Speaker Case Study
::: {.learning-activity}
Read and analyse the following case study.
*A controversial person is coming to your community planning on giving a public lecture in the community hall. The event which has been widely publicized has drawn protests from those who are petitioning the organizers to cancel the event. They argue that this speaker’s views are offensive and should be neither tolerated nor even publicly expressed. *
From the course readings, how do you think John Stuart Mill would respond if he were one of the organizers? Tell why you believe he would respond this way. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
::: note
*Note that you may be asked to review this case or similar cases in your class discussion groups. You may want to prepare by relating the case to your readings. Specifically, identify the ethical issues and terms to help explain the case.*
:::
:::
### Activity: Key Terms Quiz (ungraded)
::: {.learning-activity}
In order to review some of the major concepts from the text, take the following unmarked quiz. Although you will not be evaluated on these terms, they will assist you in the assignments for this course. Match the following terms to their correct definition.
<iframe src="https://create.twu.ca/h5p/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=h5p_embed&id=8" width="648" height="562" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" title="Phil210-Act5.4"></iframe><script src="https://create.twu.ca/h5p/wp-content/plugins/h5p/h5p-php-library/js/h5p-resizer.js" charset="UTF-8"></script>
:::
## Summary {.unnumbered}
In this unit we are turning our attention to the ethics of free speech and expression. In many countries, the right to free speech is regarded as one of the foundations of society, as virtually an unquestioned cultural assumption and those who dare to challenge, or even question, it do so at their peril. In other words, it is a foundational right upon which we base many other rights. In this unit we’ll explore the following intriguing questions about this right: how did it gain such an elevated standing in the minds of so many people? Is there an ethical basis on which this right is grounded? Moreover, should it ever be limited or is it simply an absolute principle with no exceptions? If it should be limited, when, and why? What could possibly be so important that it would call for a limitation on one’s free speech?
::: {.check}
Before you move on to the next unit, you may want to check to make sure that you are able to:
- Explain John Stuart Mill’s four grounds for the freedom of expression.
- Describe limitations on freedom of expression suggested by John Stuart Mill and his rationale for such limits.
- Discuss why some who still favour freedom of speech believe pornography should not be freely distributed.
- Show how John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle is foundational to the question of when and why limits should be placed on free speech.
:::
<!-- ## Assessment {.unnumbered}
::: {.note}
**Ethics Committee Response**
*See the Assessments section for more details on submitting your Ethics Committee Response, as well as the grading criteria.*
:::-->
<!-- **Ethics Video (30%)** For this assignment, you’ll create a 2-minute video articulating a moral viewpoint on one of the following issues: free speech or sexual morality (Units 3-4 topics). You should draw upon the readings from Units 3 and 4 to support your stance and make a concise case for your chosen viewpoint. Your Ethics Video should be submitted on Moodle by the end of the week 4. *See the Assessments section for more details on submitting your Ethics Video, as well as the grading criteria.* -->