Thursday, February 2, 2017
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A liberal state should protect the freedom of speech of illiberal groups because it would be hypocritical to suppress their rights and the state would no longer be considered liberal. In class, we defined “liberal” as a presumption of freedom, and by restricting the freedom of speech of disfavored groups, which would be considered an illiberal action, the people in power would fall under the umbrella of being illiberal. It does not matter whether the expressed opinion is right or wrong, the right to speak their mind freely is still protected by the Constitution. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect ill-favored speech so ideas are not suppressed because of this people have the ability soeak no matter what they may think or say. When the State takes away that right, the State gains the ability to restrict anything people say based off whether they consider it liberal or not. As a result, almost anything someone says could be considered illiberal and illegal by the government, thus creating a world where the government would have the power to control all forms of speech. Thus, giving the State too much power over the people. Also when only one idea is heard, the standard of what is and what is not liberal is lost. This is because without a second idea to compare it to, there becomes a lack of standards for what is considered illiberal. It does not matter what the idea says or who says it, under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution citizens have the right to speak their mind.
ReplyDeleteIlliberal groups should be tolerated because, in the United States, free speech is protected by the Constitution. No matter how much we disagree with the content of the speech, it is protected and people have a right to express their views. The Constitution serves as the framework for our democratic government. It calls for a democracy, where people have a right to vote, practice their religion, and must be treated equally under the law. The checks and balances are supposed to prevent the concentration of power and therefore prevent tyranny. So far it has worked. Is it possible that one day a group of people will convince the majority to willingly give up their rights and institute, for example, Sharia Law? It is theoretically possible. However, this would be in violation of the Constitution and therefore, if the checks and balances work, it would be struck down by the courts. Are there assurances that this system will always work? Not really. It depends on an educated electorate. There are no guarantees. Democracy and freedom cannot and should not be taken for granted. The people have a duty to protect it by being educated and involved in their government. Democracy comes with risks, such as giving people freedom of speech by which people can convince others to do things that are not in their best interest, but without freedom of speech and ideas, democracy itself is already compromised since democracy depends on this fundamental freedom. Giving up freedom of speech does not make democracy safer; it actually destroys it with a swift move. While there are no guarantees that democracy will survive, the founding fathers bet on the judgement of the populate and, so far, it has worked pretty well, slowly moving us toward a more perfect union, even with the hiccups along the way. The founding fathers could not have anticipated our way of life today with global equalization, automation, communication via internet, etc., however, their loose framework for society still appears to be one of the best there is and freedom of speech is at its core. It is a necessary part to debate the way forward in a democracy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a liberal state should tolerate such political groups. If they are not preaching or causing harm to others, they are not doing anything other than exploring different beliefs which they are entirely entitled to do so. Having different viewpoints and political groups is similar to Mill's thoughts on having an opinion. When there are wrong opinions it reminds us why we believe our opinions to be right. When we see a viewpoint like that of the communists, it reminds us why we care so much about democracy and capitalism. A foundation of this democracy which we value is freedom of speech. These political groups should be able to say whatever they want as long as they are causing no harm to others and as long as they are not saying or doing hateful things to other groups of people. I think this is very relevant today as the current president is taking many actions that the population believes to be in this category of hateful towards others. This is turn has sparked protests which is another action protected by democracy, the right to assemble. Arguing and differing viewpoints tend to be good as long as violence is left out of the equation. Freedom of speech protects political groups and the right to assemble allows the people to fight back when the line in the sand is crossed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah (and everyone else) on this. I believe that the illiberal political groups or views should be free to express their beliefs in society as it is protected by the core foundation of Democracy (and our amendments). The very definition of Democracy is power to the people, so while the government can't/shouldn't have any ability to infringe on the rights of the illiberal groups, it gives the power to the people and society to ignore those views. Again, like Hannah said, Democracy is based upon the beliefs of the people so it is imperative for the government let the people and their beliefs dictate the progression of society and its ideologies. In order to create any substantial form of democratic government, it becomes imperative for the government take a backseat in how societies and individuals accept or decline these ideologies (of course without suppressing them). In addition, any intervention on behalf of the liberal democratic government would be extremely hypocritical as it in some essence becomes the type of government that the illiberal groups are advocating for. In conclusion, it is essential for the liberal democratic state/government to allow its citizens the choice in either accepting or denying any 'illiberal' political views as it correlates directly to what a Democracy is.
ReplyDelete