The Limits of Liberty: Response to John Stuart Mill

The Limits of Liberty: Westboro Baptist Church

Mill would not support the acts of the Westboro Baptist Church Protestors but would encourage their freedom of expression elsewhere, not at a funeral, seemingly exploiting and molesting mourning families, specifically the Synder family. He would argue that although they had the right to exercise their freedom of speech, they had unjustifiable cause for protesting on the day and location of the funeral. Furthermore, Mill would attest that the protesters’ actions caused immediate harm to the mourning Synder family, as well as a risk of harm to Albert Synder, the father of the deceased soldier.

Mill, although striving to maximize the liberty of all individuals, sustains that interference is warranted when actors ‘without unjustifiable cause, do harm to others” (Mill, Cht. 3, Paragraph 2). The church members shouted at the Synder family, displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags” (Mears). Even though Mill would respect their opinion, regardless of its truth, he would argue that as long as one’s opinion does not induce damage, or risk of damage on any individual other than oneself, all forms of speech must be tolerated. However, this was not the case: Albert Synder, the father of the marine, called on an expert witness to testify the “worsening of his diabetes and severe depression had resulted from the Defendants' activities,” proving the presence of not only intentionally inflicted emotional but also physical harm, displacing the case out of the hand of liberty and into the law (Wikipedia). Additionally, Mill maintains that if one’s opinion or action also affects others, it is only tolerable “with their free and voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation” (Mill, Cht.1, 3pg, Paragraph 2). According to this argument, voluntary agreement and consent were not given even though the protest impacted, frankly targeting and exploiting the Synder family’s funeral. 

A critic would argue that the Westboro members were justified as they stayed on public rights-of-way, had the permission of the police to gather, and the Synder family would merely see the signs, much less read what was written on them, especially since the protestors ended before the funeral began. As a result, critics would rebut that the protest itself did not induce injury, and it was actually the online comments and discussion that triggered the damage, nullifying the damage of the protest itself and supporting the First Amendment rights of the church protesters. 

Mill would respond by saying that regardless of how the harm was caused, the protest was the source of the damage. Despite the family not seeing the signs and viewing the majority of the story on online media, the protest itself posed a threat of physical and emotional injury, as Synder testified (Bryers, Alito). Mill has an ambiguous stance regarding emotional harm: he states that “there are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for and resent it as an outrage to their feelings” (Harm Handout). Mill would concur with this statement that hurt feelings and offense do not qualify as harm, however, the injury induced to the Synder family was not only emotional but also physical. That being said, Mill’s definition of harm broadly surrounds the physical sense of harm and disregards the emotional and traumatic aspects of harm. Although he states that offense cannot qualify as harm, Mill’s argument disqualifies authentic emotional distress, especially in the case of a funeral, should demonstrate to be prevalent and relevant. 

The Limits of Liberty: New Hampshire Seatbelt Laws 

Mill would also be for the implementation of a seat belt law in New Hampshire, stating that the liberty of choosing one’s seatbelt preference proves minute compared to the damages and injuries no law enforcement would induce. However, he would be reluctant to succumb to the tyranny of the majority and conforming society without various experiments of living. Although a seatbelt law would infringe on the freedom of citizens’ seatbelt preferences, Mill argues that this small infringement on people’s liberty is a small sacrifice to pay for the safety of all citizens. Mill “regards utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (Mill, Cht1, 2pg, Paragraph 5). Since 70% of New Hampshire residents already wear seatbelts despite the lack of a law, Mill would comment that the implementation of a law would factor into account utility for the most amount of people (Automotive Fleet Staff). 

Additionally, Mill would also argue that a since voluntary seatbelt system would result in “definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or the public, the case should be taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law” (Mill, Cht.4, 3pg, Paragraph 1). The 30% of individuals who decide not to wear seatbelts are posing a threat to the safety of other citizens. For instance, a parent with their children who does not conform to wearing a seatbelt, despite their responsibility as a parent present to take care of the child and provide them with the means of leading a successful life, put themselves at potential risk of death, and injury, abandoning their responsibility as a parent. This analogy aligns with Mill’s example of the drunk police officer: “no person ought to be punished simply for being drink; but a solider or policeman would be punished for being drunk on duty” (Harm Handout).

The objection likely to be made against this argument is as follows: state-wide enforcement of a seatbelt law results in ape-like imitation, and consequently a stagnation in society’s growth and development. Furthermore, the critic would argue that different experiments of living accumulate into guiding society toward the right direction, and its lack thereof would stagnate society’s search for the ‘truth’. 

Mill agrees that there should be different experiments of living which would contradict his support for a seatbelt enforcement law. However, he also sustains that “it would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it” (Mill, Cht 3. Paragraph 5). In 2017, 14, 955 citizens were saved as a result of seatbelts, extending their utility and happiness in society. Also, “enacting a primary seat belt law in New Hampshire would result in $7.9 million in savings to state government, the federal government, and insurance companies, primarily in reduced medical expenses,” allowing the state to utilize its budget for more productive means (Seat Belt Law). The same logic follows for the argument against ape-like imitation: a case so minute as seatbelt laws will not diminish human faculty. Moreover, even though creating a state law under the influence of the tyranny of the majority would go against Mill’s values of liberty, stating that the government cannot censor the minority to conform to the perspectives of the majority. Despite this, Mill also “regards utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions, which would support the  (Mill, Cht1, 2pg, Paragraph 5).

Works Cited

Automotive Fleet Staff. "New Hampshire Moves Closer to Seatbelt Law for Drivers." Automotive Fleet, 27 Feb. 2020, www.automotive-fleet.com/352082/new-hampshire-moves-closer-to-seatbelt-law-for-drivers. Accessed 8 May 2024.

Breyer, and Alito. "Facts and Case Summary - Snyder V. Phelps." United States Courts, 6 Oct. 2010, www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps. Accessed 8 May 2024.

Citizens Count Editor, editor. "Seat Belt Law." Citizens Count, www.citizenscount.org/issues/seat-belt-law. Accessed 8 May 2024.

Mears, Bill. "Justices Hear Case of Anti-gay Protests at Military Funerals." CNN, 6 Oct. 2010, www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/washington.free.speech.trial/index.html. Accessed 8 May 2024.

New Hampshire Public Radio. "You Asked, We Answered: Why Doesn't Everyone Wear Seat Belts in N.H.?" NHPR, 13 Nov. 2017, www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2017-11-13/you-asked-we-answered-why-doesnt-everyone-wear-seat-belts-in-n-h. Accessed 8 May 2024.

Mill, John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty” 

"Synder V. Phelps." Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps. Accessed 8 May 2024.