Biomatrix case exercises - student module  (Page 16/21)

1. A right is a capacity of action essential to autonomy that others are obliged to recognize and respect.
2. A duty is a principle that obliges us to recognize and respect the legitimate rights claims of others.
3. Rights and duties are correlative. For every right there is a series of correlative duties and duty-holders.
4. For a right claim to be legitimate, the right must be essential to autonomy, vulnerable to a standard threat, and imply correlative duties that do not deprive the duty-holders of anything essential ( feasible ).
5. Correlative duties generally fall into three categories. First, are the most fundamental duties not to deprive right holders of their right. Second are the duties to prevent others from depriving right-holders of their rights whenever possible. Finally, in cases where right-holders have been deprived of their right, there are correlative duties to aid those deprived.

The main claim of freedom of speech consists of the right to express our opinions, even if--and especially when--these are offensive to others. Is this a legitimate or valid claim? If so, it must be essential, vulnerable, and feasible. Why would freedom of speech be essential to autonomy? (Would you agree that expressing one's ideas and receiving feedback from others is a necessary part of developing these thoughts? Then how would developing thoughts contribute to autonomy?) Is the standard threat that our thoughts may be offensive to others who would then try to censor them? Does this constitute vulnerability and the need to protect speech as the capacity to express and develop thought? Finally, does recognizing and respecting free speech in others deprive us of something essential? (Is the legal punishment for defamation a violation of the right of free speech? Does recognizing and respecting the right of free speech of others deprive us of the ability to defend ourselves against defamation?)

John Stuart Mill limits freedom of speech by his "harm principle." If the speech threatens to harm someone (the speaker not included) then society can suppress or censor that speech in its own defense. This is a broad statement of the right. For example, free speech need not be responsible speech. It need not even be true speech for Mill (see below) discusses the bad consequences of censoring false speech. In fact only speech that directly causes harm falls under this principle: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, inciting an angry mob to riot, and motivating others to inflict harm. So Mill pushes back the limits to free speech but not entirely. Even for its most eloquent advocate, free speech has its limits.

Still free speech is allocated generous territory by Mill. He bases his argument against censorship on the content of opinions. He shows how censorship is founded on the untenable position of infallibility. If one censors opinion contrary to received opinion, then one insulates received opinion from every avenue of criticism and improvement--this assumes infallibility. (Received opinion is that which everybody takes for true without question or examination. Slavery was received opinion in the southern states of the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries.) Moreover, this assumes, without proof, the veracity of what society currently accepts as truth. Mills' argument for free speech and against censorship looks at three possibilities: