Hana asked:

What positions would Mill and opponent of his take with respect to whether white supremacists have
the right to march in a black neighborhood? and why?

============

Mill would say that it is okay for white supremacists to march in a black neighbourhood, so long as
they do not harm those living in the area, or encourage others to harm them. And so long as they do
not prevent those living in the neighbourhood from expressing their own opinion or marching
themselves. This is because Mill argues that we are free to do what we want providing what we do
does not harm others. Mill also argues that mere offence or distaste does not constitute harm, so the
white supremacists would be allowed, and perhaps even encouraged by Mill to march.

Now there are problems for Mill in saying just what it means to harm someone, or the limits of
encouragement that is allowable, but generally most people would perhaps agree with his views.
There are however opponents that would disagree with Mill, I think we can identify three major types,
one that I call 'free speech hypocrites', a second which could be called 'free speech humanitarians'.
Both of these work within a Millian framework and disagree with then details of Mill's theory. But a
third opponent is one who would reject entirely what Mill has to say about liberty.

Free speech hypocrites all those like the white supremacists, who argue the case for freedom of
speech as a constitutional right under law, so that they can march, but only appeal to the value of free
speech in order to actively deny such rights to others, namely those living in the black neighbourhood.
Such opponents would not accept the consequence of Mill's view that every has the freedom to do
what they want. They would not want others to be free to march against them.

The second group agree with Mill that liberty is a good thing and free speech should be permitted, but
disagree with Mill that whatever its content, free speech does no harm. They would argue that racism,
homophobia, fascism, and other prejudiced beliefs are harmful and should be prevented from being
freely expressed. The problem here is that no matter what anyone says it will offend someone, should
we therefore ban all differing opinion, or offensive behaviour?

The third opponent does not agree with Mill that free speech or individual liberty is necessarily a good
state of affairs. They usually would argue that individual freedom leads to unfulfilled lives. Such
opponents would find support in the works of Plato and Aristotle, who argue the need to live the Good
Life, a life that is defined by the role one plays within a society. Hobbes would also disagree with Mill.
He thinks that individual freedom must be sacrificed to a powerful sovereign if those individuals are to
avoid war and conflict.

I do not think that Hobbes would allow the white supremacists to march, if the march would lead to
frustration or harm the black community, because it would them mean that there was an imbalance in
the freedom given up by some. If this imbalance was corrected by the sovereign allowing the blacks
to have their own march, it would lead to frustration on the other side, possibly resulting in conflict,
and so the sovereign would not be doing his job. The only way the sovereign could protect all the
members of society would be to ban the march in the first place. Freedom is given up for the sake of
peace and survival.

Brian Tee
Dept of Philosophy
University of Sheffield