Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on John Stuart Mill: Freedom of Speech and Tolerating the Intolerable. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page discussion of Mills views on the importance of Freedom of Speech.
Uses Supreme Court cases to reinforce Mills view of negative freedom and
tolerating the intolerable in order to provide the greatest benefit to
the greatest number of people. Suggests that Mill is correct and that
even speech which could be construed as hate speech should be protected
under the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution. Bibliography
lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: AM2_PPmillSp.doc
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
philosophical approach has been extended into many arenas of our contemporary lives, however. One of these is the appropriate extent of our Constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, the Constitutional right to free speech is one which has been used in more than one instance to excuse opinion which go along with often violent and hate-related activities.
The Supreme Court has been besieged in recent years with cases relating to just how far the Constitutional provision for free speech can be carried, just what degree of
power the Federal government has over prohibiting the use certain words or even actions. In addition to the legal determinations we can look to the philosophies of Mill to
resolve the conflict between freedom of speech and hate-related activities. Mills utilitarian approach holds that terms such as "good" and "right" are defined
on the basis of which behavior provides the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. He advocates negative freedom suggesting that because freedom of speech is important to society
as a whole we must tolerate speech which may be even hateful and dangerous because that speech is also beneficial. The student should be assured that Mill is correct
in his views. Freedom of speech should be given precedent over the reaction which that speech may cause. This precept has been upheld in the Supreme Court in
one case after another. In 1949 Terminiello v. Chicago, a case involving a speaker at a Christian Veterans of America event whose words
were said to incite violence in the already disorderly crowd who were forced to wait outside the auditorium due to a lack of space, it was found that the principle
...