This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Locke April 02 2008 Free Speech it is your duty to criticize and speak out in public is this not advocacy of free speech? Locke's strong defence of religion entails some degree of free speech J S Mill John Stewart Mill is directly tied to speech - he thought about it he was interested in it Mill said the more diversity the of thought and speech the more progress the market place of ideas - you get at the truth through speech Mill did not think that speech had an intrinsic value Mill thought that if you don't have free speech the consequence is no progress - utlitarian you only get the result of progress in society if your society has modernized and is developed (western europe) Mill's argument is based Consequences a consequential argument Locke interested in internal beliefs and ideas that make up the core of your identity was interested in protecting this inner space from government if your didn't express these internal thoughts it wasn't the end of the world Locke argues for a fundamental internal space - a space for setting values, a space for god this space is sacred - this is a natural right - founded prior to government free speech is only tangentially linked to this natural right the fundamental right at play is this freedom of conscious calling this a fundamental innate right is stronger than saying there will be consequences it turns out it is more difficult to implement - it is hard to maintain poeple should be able to worship how they want to worshup freedom from government Governments shouldn't try to shape your internal beliefs Mill shared this idea - MIll thought it was wrong because it had bad consequences for society - we want society to progress Locke said at a pre political level it was fundementally wrong two arguments what happens when governments cross the line? Where is the line? what happens when governments cross the line? page 48 - well know principal of civil disobedience you do not have to follow the law but you must willingly accept the consequences unjust laws the government has taken on a power it ought not to have therefore it is not legitmate and not a law the government forfeits its right to impose this law page 49 if the magistrate attempts to impose such a law - What can be done?...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course POL 200 taught by Professor Chambers during the Spring '08 term at University of Toronto- Toronto.
- Spring '08
- The Prince