1) According to Mill, the major problem for a democracy was the government opposing the social liberty, or the individual's power and rights. Representative democracy had the problem of the ruler opposing the ruled, when the focus of the rulers should be on protecting the liberties of the ruled. The interests of the majority override the needs and interests of the minority under a democracy, in which individuality would be compromised.
2) Not all laws are justified. Laws are of course made by other humans and are susceptible to error and misjudgement. According to Mill, sometimes individuals have more effective ways of dealing with their situations and laws can end up interfering with a person's ability to deal with problems. Also, law can compromise one's privacy during the rectifying of his or situation, which can create more interference depending on the situation.
Although this is often a controversial topic, the seat belt law is justified because it is implemented in the justification of one's safety. Seat belt laws force people to take care of their safety before driving a car.
3) Mill justifies the freedom of expression by emphasizing the importance of revealing different perspectives. The inclusion of the voices of all of the individuals in the society, including the voiceless, or the under-represented individuals, can help to open people's eyes to different points of view. For example, so called conspiracy theorists are criticized and known for being crazy, but they remind everyone to always reconsider their own established truths. I believe that realizing how much we don't know about our own society and everything else in general is a good direction for becoming wiser and finding ways to truly reach our goals and happiness. The availability of different opinions can keep our society open-minded, humble, and in the right direction of progression and enlightenment.
4) Types of freedom of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment are ones that truly pose a danger to others in society (such as blackmail!). Freedom of expression should be unlimited as long as they do not directly harm others. We live in a very censored society. When important details of policies such as the Monsanto Protection Act go unnoticed, people should have the right to inform others who may not be aware of policies that can greatly affect their health, especially when people don't have the time to inform themselves of the news. I always believe that the truth will prevail, and in due time, all behind-the-scenes corruption and lies will be exposed. While many people are uninterested in many seemingly corrupt acts happening around them (because they believe that these issues will never affect their lives), I also see many brave people with integrity that don't hesitate to voice their opinions and tell what they believe to be the truth. Unlimited Freedom of Speech is so important in a dishonest society because it represents hope and the battle against ignorance.
5) I believe that is a fair criticism. All groups have the right to equal freedom of expression. There should be no favoritism shown for a religion just because it is more established and mainstream in western society. Otherwise, this would be the case of the faulty majority of opinion expressed by Mill in his problems with democracy.
ad 1: Nice!
ReplyDeletead 2: Mill believes that the only way the government is justified to limit an individual’s liberty is for the protection of others, in other words, only to prevent that individual from harming others. It is not justified, however, to force a person to do something that is intended for her or his own good. So the seatbelt law, given that it is for the protection of one’s own good, is not justified, according to Mill.
ad 3) I like your example of conspiracy theorists. Though they are usually wrong, their voice plays a positive role in the exchange of ideas.
ad4) Very nice!