Ep. 222: John Stuart Mill’s lasting impact on the Supreme Court
Aug 15, 2024
auto_awesome
In this discussion, Eric Kasper, a political science professor, and Troy Kozma, a professor of philosophy, dive into John Stuart Mill's profound influence on American free speech jurisprudence. They unpack Mill's 'harm principle' and its connection to Supreme Court decisions, highlighting key cases like Abrams v. U.S. and the evolution of First Amendment interpretations. The conversation explores the tensions between governmental pressures and free expression, as well as Mill's views on education and race, showcasing why his philosophies remain vital today.
John Stuart Mill's harm principle asserts individual liberty should only be restricted to prevent direct harm to others, shaping free speech jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment has evolved from limited protections to embracing a broader understanding influenced by Mill's marketplace of ideas.
Mill's advocacy for diverse and unpopular speech remains relevant today, as the Supreme Court navigates challenges like social media and cancel culture in free expression debates.
Deep dives
The Philosophical Foundations of Free Speech
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and philosopher John Stuart Mill are significant figures in advocating for free speech, emphasizing its necessity against conformity and censorship. Mill's treatise, 'On Liberty', argues that silencing dissenting opinions is a presumption of infallibility, highlighting the importance of hearing contrary views. His belief in the marketplace of ideas suggests that truth prevails through open discourse, as individuals must be allowed access to a wide array of concepts, even those deemed offensive. Together, Holmes and Mill shaped the philosophical underpinnings of free speech rights, asserting the need to protect all expressions regardless of their popularity or approval.
Evolution of the Supreme Court's Free Speech Jurisprudence
The trajectory of the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment interpretations reflects a shift from original interpretations, which offered minimal protections, to a broader understanding influenced by Millian philosophy. Initially, decisions upheld restrictions on speech unless prior restraint was placed, focusing primarily on the law's textual limitations without considering broader implications for individual expression. Over time, the court began aligning its judgments more closely with Mill's ideas, recognizing that the purpose of free speech protection extends beyond politics to include commercial and unpopular speech. This shift highlights an expansive interpretation of free expression, rooted in the belief that a flourishing society requires diverse, unbounded discourse.
Mill's Harm Principle and Its Application
Mill proposed the harm principle, asserting that individual liberty can only be curtailed to prevent direct harm to others, not to shield individuals from their choices. This viewpoint posits that the expression of unpalatable opinions or actions that may be harmful to individuals themselves do not necessitate state intervention. The Supreme Court gradually adopted this principle, particularly in cases involving political speech, asserting that expression should not be suppressed unless it poses imminent harm. The evolving understanding of this principle emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the role of government in regulating expression based solely on the potential for direct harm to others.
The Marketplace of Ideas in Supreme Court Decisions
The concept of the marketplace of ideas serves as a critical framework in understanding First Amendment protections as articulated by Mill and adopted by the Supreme Court. This principle suggests that truth and societal good emerge from the competition of ideas in an open forum, allowing individuals to determine the merit of various opinions. Landmark cases such as Abrams v. United States and Schenck v. United States showcase how the court began to prioritize expressive freedoms, even when individuals advocated controversial or dissenting views. The court's acknowledgment of this marketplace concept not only underpins their free speech doctrines but also aligns closely with Mill's assertions regarding the value of free and unrestrained discourse.
Contemporary Reflections on Mill's Influence
Mill's principles continue to resonate within the current landscape of First Amendment rights, with modern court cases affirming his robust advocacy for free expression. Despite the evolving societal values and pressures, the Supreme Court has largely maintained that offensive and unpopular speech deserves protection, standing firm against censorship. The recent rulings also reflect Mill's assertion of the significance of diverse viewpoints—the court recognizes that a robust democracy depends on a marketplace that includes all opinions. However, contemporary challenges, including the rise of social media and cancel culture, lead to ongoing debates about the scope of protection for speech, emphasizing the need to return to Mill's foundational ideas on liberty and expression.
Eric Kasper is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, where he serves as the director of the Menard Center for Constitutional Studies.
Troy Kozma is a professor of philosophy and the academic chair at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire - Barron County.
Timestamps
00:00 Intro
02:26 Book’s origin
06:51 Who is John Stuart Mill?
10:09 What is the “harm principle”?
16:30 Early Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment
26:25 What was Justice Holmes’ dissent in Abrams v. U.S.?
30:28 Why did Justice Brandeis join Holmes’ dissents?
36:10 What are loyalty oaths?
40:36 Justice Black’s nuanced view of the First Amendment
43:33 What were Mill’s views on race and education?