Liberty of the Press
“The time, is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the ‘liberty of the press’ as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government.”
When John Stuart Mill wrote that in his essay On Liberty he was immediately contradicted by the introduction of the ‘Government Press Prosecutions 1858’. Mill stated at the time that he didn’t think he had been contradicted since prosecutions were rarely carried out and were not related to political disagreement but rather what is to be deemed immoral.
John Stuart Mill is certainly one of my favourite philosophers. An influence that always seems to be missed when counting opinion leaders from the 19th Century. A self-confessed agnostic that published atheistic papers after his death in order to avoid controversy and public disagreement. An individual who could read Greek fluently at three years of age thanks to an experiment by his father, James Mill. Mill was briefly an MP at Westminster and was highly aware of society; particularly conformities of middle class life which Mill feared would remove the importance of liberty. Mill was certainly a lucid thinker who did not fear transitioning from one opinion to another and saw the virtue of intellect as the highest good, the summum bonum. However, he remained faithful to his father and remained a utilitarian for all his life.
This may indeed be the reason why Mill is commonly viewed as only a writer of utilitarianism. If truth is to be told his essay On Liberty caused the most controversy during his life. The liberty of the press really deals with the liberty of thought and discussion. Should thought and discussion be suppressed? Quite clearly we now live in an age where a whole manner of content can be found upon the internet devoid of any control or suppression.
It could be argued that modern social networking technologies are causing the press a bit of a nightmare. Twitter for instance (I know, I know, I mentioned Twitter yet again) means that journalists have to be particularly aware of their own image. Unfortunately, beyond the powers of PR, anything you write as an individual could be broadcasted around and give you bad press. In the digital sense of liberty, concerning public opinion, you have to remain accountable for your own actions.
You may remember back in 2007 that “Angry scenes greet Oxford debate” ahead of talks by BNP leader Nick Griffin and historian David Irving. I was 17 at the time of this row and I have to confess my opinion still remains the same. I completely disagree with the way Nick Griffin and David Irving were greeted. Not only is it inconsiderate, indecent but it is also childish. Put to one side any disagreements with their views – academia has to be a mix. It is what the Latin universes means “combined into one”. University should be a mix of all academic opinion, not just the mainstream.
Please don’t for one moment believe that I am a BNP supporter or holocaust denier, but any lover of academia has to separate the mainstream from the truth. The incident at Oxford is exactly what Mill argued against On Liberty. All silencing of discussion is the assumption of infallibility, an arrogance which is not worthy to call itself intellectually curious or wise. Mill saw that whilst people could see fallibility in theory many don’t make precautions against personal fallibility. Whilst you and I may believe the holocaust to 100% happen this does not remove the need for others to speak about it. Mill saw that mainstream beliefs were often a mix between true and false. Often fascists provide a single truthful piece of jigsaw which may fit to the mainstream view. Academic opinion is about grasping many views and constructing your own view.
One student/protester argued, “This has nothing to do with free speech, it’s about giving credibility to fascists, making them appear to be part of the mainstream”. By no means will a view such as Nick Griffins become mainstream (although recent elections make you wonder) and so why not listen? I can’t think of anything more satisfying than to admit knowing a fascist view but then having the ability to refute it. Wise men should see that they can rely upon their own judgements which should not deter them from listening to others.
Really the liberty of the press is no different than this offertory of opinion. All individuals should have the right to voice their opinion. Mill saw how very few facts have the ability to explain themselves without comment.
Christopher Hitchens, one of my favourite journalists, has had some very controversial views in relation to Mother Teresa and her activities during her life. When the Catholic Church decide who to make a Saint, a process known as canonization, there is an individual called a “Devil’s Advocate” who offers alternative views. Christopher Hitchens has been a devil’s advocate during the case to argue against Mother Teresa becoming a saint. Mill observed that despite the intolerance of the Catholic Church, the holiness of its men, facts and opinion still needed to be weighed to reach a conclusion.
It has to be seen that opinion within the press should be unmonitored. Mill’s words could have very well been written through fear radical press invoked on the higher classes. He certainly did not want to hear the voices of the lower classes evaporate through controls set by those in higher power. Like all ages ours is unique with the internet, where opinion may flourish without setback but how will liberty within present day media remain?
Posted: July 26th, 2009 under Journalism.