The following is intended to generate thought and discussion. I kept the post as neutral as possible, as I think these are questions everyone can enjoy chewing on.[1]
__________________________________________________
In his masterful essay, On Liberty, J.S. Mill sets the stage for one of the most enduring questions in modern political philosophy: What is liberty and what is the state's role in protecting it?
Defining Liberty
For Mill, liberty is comprised of three principles. Violating any of these principles is tyrannical.
"It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.
"No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified."
- J.S. Mill, On Liberty (emphasis mine)
Whereas enlightenment thinkers believed that organized, authoritative bodies (e.g. the state and the church) represent the greatest threats to liberty, Mill recognized a potent threat from the prevailing opinion of unorganized masses:
"When society is itself the tyrant [...] its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually held by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them."
- J.S. Mill, On Liberty (emphasis mine)
Enlightenment thinkers proposed that, to protect against systemic tyranny, we design our governing systems with limiting internal controls. Hence western political systems emphasize separation of powers, constitutional limitations on government, separation of church and state, etc. But how do we combat the organic tyranny of majoritarian opinion without tyrannizing the majority?
Case #1
In 2014 Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused to bake a wedding cake for engaged gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig claiming his religious convictions as the reason for discrimination. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division contending that Phillips had violated state anti-discrimination laws. A CCRD ruling in the couple's favor led to an appeal by Phillips to the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts. The court upheld the prior ruling and ordered Phillips to pay associated fines, take re-education classes on discrimination, file quarterly compliance reports with the CCRD for two years, and make wedding cakes for any prospective gay clients. Further appeals were denied, and Phillips chose to close his bakery instead of violate his beliefs.
If we treat the religious community's refusal to participate in gay weddings as a Millsian social tyranny on the gay minority then the state's intrusion can be justified as a promotion of social liberty. On the other hand, many would argue that Colorado's laws tyrannize devoutly religious business owners by forcing them to choose between betraying their religious convictions and going out of business. Is liberty served by these types of anti-discrimination laws? Is there another way to ensure that minority communities are protected from this type of social tyranny?
Case #2
In May 2016 liberal activists interrupted a DePaul University College Republicans event hosting conservative columnist Milo Yiannopoulos. To shut down the event the activists blew whistles, took over the stage, stole the microphone from the interviewer, and threatened physical violence against Yiannopoulos. The event was eventually canceled after school administrators told campus security and the Chicago PD, who were both present, not to interrupt the protest.
Mill would argue that the liberal activists' attempt to shut down political speech represents an affront to liberty and a social tyranny. How can we ensure that freedom of expression is preserved in our society amid a significant, organic movement to silence certain viewpoints? Is there a way the state can protect freedom of expression from organic threats without becoming tyrannical towards protest movements?
[1] Beef for conservatives, curry for liberals, kale for progressives, and hemp for libertarians.
