Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished freedoms. If there is one institution that, throughout history, has most embodied and protected this fundamental freedom, it is the university. So one...Show moreFreedom of speech is one of our most cherished freedoms. If there is one institution that, throughout history, has most embodied and protected this fundamental freedom, it is the university. So one would expect the freedom to express almost anything on campus. One would be gravely mistaken. This paper argues that, in a relatively recent trend on American universities, views deemed offensive, hateful or discriminatory are increasingly censored. Free speech is stifled by means of speech codes, free speech zones, no-platforming controversial speakers and much more. After having examined the severity of free speech restrictions in part one, part two of this paper presents a defence of a Millian, or ‘broad’, understanding of free speech. Following John Stuart Mill, broad free speech allows for the expression of almost any view, including those found offensive, hateful or discriminatory. For allowing all views to be heard is essential to the university’s goals of establishing the truth and forming the students into critical thinkers. Finally, arguments in favour of free speech restrictions on universities are discussed and refuted accordingly. In concluding, this paper advises universities to refuse to implement free speech restrictions, as these are antithetical to the goals of the university.Show less
The claim that democratic citizens are morally obligated to obey unjust laws has been defended by several political thinkers, among whom John Rawls and Thomas Christiano. In essence, both believe...Show moreThe claim that democratic citizens are morally obligated to obey unjust laws has been defended by several political thinkers, among whom John Rawls and Thomas Christiano. In essence, both believe that citizens have to obey the law, even when it is unjust, that is to say, when citizens disagree with it, in a just democracy. As an example of an existing unjust law that would have to be obeyed on both Rawls’ and Christiano’s account, I discuss the Dutch law on euthanasia. My critique of their theories is that they do not take into account the distinction between laws addressing self-regarding and other-regarding conduct. It is my thesis, strengthened by John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, that every individual has a most basic and innate right to be the sole authority on her self-regarding conduct, and therefore that democratic authority is limited to citizens’ other-regarding conduct. Discussing in particular euthanasia in cases of a completed life ('voltooid leven'), I defend euthanasia as self-regarding conduct and therefore as a choice that everyone should be able to make freely. Rawls and Christiano are right to claim that democratic citizens have a moral obligation to obey unjust laws only insofar as they concern other-regarding conduct. To uphold the claim, they have to incorporate said right into their theories and protect it accordingly.Show less