is not, and will not become, a blanket restriction of a side of the political social
cleavage, perhaps attested by resurgences of mass Trump support despite media
bans (Seisdedos, 2024). I normatively posit that selective state intervention
promotes public interests by achieving, for example, Sen and Nussbaum’s
‘Capability Approach’: fostering the environment for ‘Bodily Integrity’ and,
particularly, ‘Affiliation’ capabilities (Wolff, 2019, p.125). Contrary to Mill,
Haworth (1998) reinforces this: “ There are contexts... [where] expression... is
inappropriate,... therefore justification for suppress[ion]” (p.45), for example,
how Holocaust denial “ fosters a nascent enthusiasm for fascism ” (p.47). For
Trump, election-denial perhaps ‘fostered enthusiasm’ for violent anarchism
beyond civil disobedience, overturning democratic norms which, while a
normative debate in itself, proved to be vastly dangerous. Ultimately, I contest
Mill in that denialism’s consequences deserve more consideration than giving
“ a chance... to all sides of the truth ” (Mill, 1859, p.81).
To conclude, free speech is an incredibly nuanced topic, particularly with the
contemplation of UK regulations and Millian arguments. However, considering
the potential impact hate speech and denialism rhetoric may have, and has had,
on socially-salient groups, public interests and the perpetuation of
marginalisation, it is undoubtable that some speech deserves curtailing, contrary
to Mill’s stance. Nevertheless, such interpretations of Mill’s arguments, while
likely, are still theoretical, and one can never know how Mill would truly
respond to such contemporary issues, were he alive today.
11
Made with FlippingBook HTML5