Chief Wahoo's Last Hurrah

The Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo is a crude caricature of a Native American that many people find offensive.  A private school in the Cleveland area tolerated this offensive caricature when it was restricted to a once weekly dress down day.   However, when the school switched to a more relaxed dress that allowed sports wear on any day, the administration decided to ban any apparel that featured Chief Wahoo's likeness.  Several students are bothered by this policy because they revere Chief Wahoo as vital symbol of their team and see wearing it as an example of team spirit and civic pride.  Did the school administration make the right decision?  How might the offense principle apply in this circumstance?

Obesity and Paternalism

Rates of obesity in the United States are alarming -- and efforts to reverse the trend seem ineffective.  According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 38 percent of U.S. adults are obese and 17 percent of teenagers are as well.  Another third or so of Americans are overweight. Obesity can lead to serious health condition such as heart disease and diabetes.   Some governments have attempted or considered paternalist interventions to stem the tide of obesity.  For example, New York City attempted to ban the sale of soda pop in sizes greater than 16 oz.   Other cities such as Berkeley and Philadelphia have passed a soda tax.  In Philadelphia distributors are taxed 1.5 cents per once on soda pop and other sweetened drinks: a 2 liter bottle of pop that used to cost $1.79 sells today for $2.79 because of an added dollar in tax.  These laws are intended to help consumers in these cities -- but have they gone too far?  Are these laws and taxes justified?  Why or why not?

Freedom of Speech and "Alternative Facts"

J. S. Mill in his classic defense of free speech in On Liberty worries that the suppression of opinions, even those that are false, prevents a healthy debate of ideas.   He claims, for instance, that "not only the grounds of the opinion are forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the meaning of the opinion itself "(37).  Yet, in our own day, there are other threats to the vigorous debate that Mill thought essential for understanding an idea at all.   In the age of social media networks and newsfeeds, citizens insulate themselves from views that disagree with. In addition, in the era of "fake news" and "alternative facts" citizens are confused by opinions deliberately intended to manipulate them.  Many people, for example, believe that climate change is a hoax and fail to address the issue because of deliberate attempts by the fossil fuel industry to confuse them.  Under these circumstances, how is Mill's debate about ideas possible?  Is there any plausible solution?  Should the government regulate news like the FDA regulates the claims of commercial products?  Or will truth eventually win out?

Liberal Rights for Enemies of Liberals?

In our political process, major parties and candidates accept liberal rights such as freedom of speech and assembly and democratic procedures.   Yet, some political groups, while playing by the liberal and democratic rulebook, advocate policies that undermine and attack liberal rights, perhaps even repudiate them.  For example, Communists advocate for one-party rule, the repression of religious expression and controlling the media.  Similarly, some religious groups advocate for the imposition of a state religion and standards of behavior and decency imposed by that religion (such as groups in other parts of the world that wish to impose their version of shariah law). Assuming these groups renounce violence, should a liberal state tolerate illiberal political groups?    Is their political speech protected by the same principles they ultimately renounce?

Highways and Protests

In On Liberty, Mill vigorously defends the right of citizens to assemble and express their views.  Yet how far does that right extend?   A bill in Iowa proposes making protesting on a highway a felony subject to as much as five years in prison.   Its proponent cites safety concerns around the obstruction of police and fire vehicles.   However, civil liberties claim it and similar laws have a chilling affect of free speech and the right to protest.  What would Mill say about all this?  Which side of the debate is correct (or is there some third or middle position that is correct)?  Is there a right to protest even if it prevents me from getting work on time?

Drugs and Liberty

Many states are beginning to experiment with legalizing marijuana for medical uses as well as for recreational uses.  Currently the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington permit some form of the recreational use of marijuana.   Nonetheless, the federal government still prohibits such uses.  Furthermore, other recreational drugs, such as LSD, cocaine, and heroine are illegal in all of the states, including those that now permit marijuana.   In many of those states the possession of at least some of those illegal drugs is a felony.   What would Mill say about the drug laws in the U. S.? Should some recreational drug use be permitted?  Should all?  What about currently legal drugs such as nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine?  Is Mill's position the current one?  Or do drug laws show that we need to go beyond the Harm to Others Principle?