Sociology Assignment: Free Speech, Social Justice, and Limits

This sociology essay delves into the complex relationship between social justice and freedom of speech, examining whether free speech should be subject to limitations. The essay begins by defining social justice and the importance of free expression, highlighting the potential for conflicts and the need for exceptions. It uses the Charlie Hebdo attack as a case study, exploring the arguments for and against limiting free speech, considering the perspectives of various scholars and theories. The essay then analyzes the utilitarian perspective, emphasizing the role of free speech in maximizing truth and supporting democratic values. It also addresses the harm principle, considering legitimate and illegitimate harms associated with speech, using pornography and erotica as examples. The conclusion suggests that while free speech is crucial, it must have certain limits to prevent social injustices and ensure societal harmony. The essay emphasizes the need for justified reasons behind any limitations, using France's government's actions as an example, and stresses the importance of eliminating barriers to free speech to prevent terrorism and promote equality.

Running head: SOCIOLOGY
Sociology
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1SOCIOLOGY
Social justice question:
Introduction
The term social justice issue” can be defined as the issue faced by human beings when
discrimination takes place on the basis of age, gender, religion as well as sexuality. Freedom of
expression is a fundamental human right since it posses the potential to help the society to
develop as well as progress. However, it has been found that several times right to free
expression leads to ignorance of the degree to which an individual can express their state of
mind. According to plato.stanford.edu, being a qualified right, there are a good number of
exception of free expression that includes threats to commit violence, criminal conspiracy and
others. In the following paragraphs the research question that includes if free speech should be
bounded by certain exceptions or not, has been discussed.
Discussion
In the year 2015, 7th January, twelve people who worked in Charlie Hebdoa satirical
magazine was murdered by two members of Al-Queda for practicing their freedom of expression
through the satirical maize. The chief reason behind the attack as was stated was repeated
Prophet Muhammad in the cartoons that were of questionable state (Nussbaum, pp. 843). The
point that needs to be highlighted includes ISIS has praised the action of killing. However this
act has been heavily criticized by other Muslim commentators. Thus, a major issue of violation
of social justice can be evidenced since the individuals were killed for expressing their opinion to
the society.
Each and every individual with progressive outlook believe that the freedom of criticizing
the government should be given to the society. However, as per Davidson, there should be good

2SOCIOLOGY
arguments for the position that freedom of speech should be coupled with a clearly stated
definition of social responsibility.
According to plato.stanford.edu, the topic freedom of speech can be defined as one of the
most contentious issues in liberal society. Each and every society places some major limitations
on the society members since it takes place within a context of competing values. This point has
been supported by Stanley Fish as he stated that the concept of free speech that is not confined
by any factors does not exist. He stated that free speech is not an independent variable but a
political prize. This point has also been supported by Haworth as he stated that freedom is speech
is not something an individual own and hence posses a good amount of limitation. A good
number of activities that encapsulates the concept of speech include writing, singing, speaking,
burning flags, yelling and others (Smith, pp.54). However, some forms of the communications
are crucial than others and hence need different levels of protection. In case two speech acts
contradicts a decision needs to be made for prioritizing one over the other. That means that there
can be no unlimited right to free speech.
However arguments that defend speech on the basis of democratic ground possess a good
number of parts. According to Nussbaum, arguments that defend speech on the basis of
democratic grounds possess a good number of parts. It has also been claimed by the researcher
that public needs a great deal of information for making informed decisions. Along with that,
when it comes to government, being the servant of the common people, information should not
be censored (Campbell, pp.23). These types of arguments demonstrate that the chief reasons
behind justifying free speech are crucial not only for exercising the right but also for allowing he
society the value of democracy. According to the utilitarianism theory, freedom of speech can be
considered as the instrument that maximizes the amount of truth that is available to the society as

3SOCIOLOGY
a whole. Smith has agreed to the fact and has stated freedom of speech needs to be protected
since it enhances the attainment of truth. The utilitarian perspective of freedom for speech has
been supported by John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. He stated that the fullest liberty of
expression needs to be there for pushing an argument to the logical limit rather than stopping the
same in order to limit the same for social embarrassment. This liberty of expression is highly
necessary for the dignity of the individuals. In case the liberty of justification is stiffed, it may
result in sacrifices of entire moral courage of the human mankind (Scanlon, pp.15). When it
come to harm associated with the concept of direct speech, mill distinguish legitimate as well as
illegitimate harm and it only take place when spec results in direct as well as clear violation of
same that it can be limited.
The argument of Mill associated with the concept of social justice for freedom has been
well-defined by the concept of pornography and erotica. According to the theory, pornography
portrays women in a manner of harming them while erotica creates sexual arousal. However, it
has been counter argued that just like depicting murder does not inspire the audience to murder
an individual, the concept of pornography alone cannot be charged and thus cannot be a reason
enough for censorship (Weinstein, pp.34).
Conclusion
From the above discussion it can be understood that freedom of speech though a highly
crucial part of development of the society, needs to be have certain limits. However, it is equally
crucial to possess justified reason behind that limit. For instance according to researchers,
considering the fact that the government of Paris did not take a significant step against the
satirical magazine after their action of defaming Prophet Mohammed ,it can be consider as a

4SOCIOLOGY
major reason behind the magazine’s staff becoming the target of the Muslim extremists. The
government of France has always undermined the Muslim religion by their actions like staying
passive to Muslim immigrants and promotion of interventions to Syria. Hence it can be clearly
understood that Muslims lacks the freedom of speech in the nation and the constant domination
has given birth to the terror. In order to prevent such terrorism in future, it is highly crucial for
the government of France to ensure elimination of any unjustified barrier to the freedom of
speech against the government.

5SOCIOLOGY
Reference list
Campbell, Tom D. The legal theory of ethical positivism. Routledge, 2016, 23.
Davidson, Lawrence. "Terror in Paris." The Humanist 75.2 (2015): 21
Nussbaum, Martha. "Why Freedom of Speech Is an Important Right and Why Animals Should
Have It." Denv. L. Rev. 95 (2017): 843.
plato.stanford.edu. "Freedom Of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia Of
Philosophy)". Plato.Stanford.Edu, 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/.
Scanlon, Thomas. "A Theory of Freedom of Expression 1." Freedom of Speech. Routledge,
2018. 13-35.
Smith, Tara. "The free speech Vernacular: conceptual confusions in the way we speak about
speech." Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 22 (2017): 57.
Weinstein, James. Hate speech, pornography, and radical attacks on free speech doctrine.
Routledge, 2018, 34.