This project was an exploration into the effect of WikiLeaks on our society, weighing up the benefits and disadvantages in order to come to a rational conclusion about the function of WikiLeaks and how freedom of speech and expression can be justifiably curtailed by the government. The philosophers I included were John Stuart Mill, I looked at his work in On Liberty surrounding his argument for freedom of expression regulated by the Harm Principle and also Immanuel Kant’s work in Critique of Pure Reason, where he gives his argument for the existence of the public sphere of discussion and just how important this is to society. Both advocate free speech in society, however both also give justifiable reasons for limiting it some extent. Mill gives a consequentialist theory based upon his Utilitarianism and Kant gives a duty based response.
I also looked at what different types of speech should be regulated, i.e. hate speech, controversial political parties such as the BNP and the benefits we experience through giving these extremists a platform of free speech. To give a comparison between the restrictions we face here in the UK I looked at Chinese censorship and how the dictatorial regime interferes in every aspect of Chinese open discussion, to remind us that this is not what we want to slide into.
Philosophers
– John Stuart Mill
– Immanuel Kant
Main Points
– Freedom of speech – to what extent do we have this right? If at all, when can this be rightfully curtailed? Why is it so important to protect?
– Freedom of media and press – censorship, Wikileaks’ effect on society
– Government control and interference – why should the government be allowed to control our access to information? What are the benefits of a limited government with free sphere for expression?