Introduction

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a document that was adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly in 1948, admitting thirty articles which put a focus on an
individual’s rights. The idea behind this declaration was to have a point of reference, instead
of an abstract idea, of the notions that the articles cover. The nineteenth article in this
document establishes one’s right to freedom of opinion and expression. John Stuart Mill,
author of On Liberty, was a strong supporter of freedom of speech. Contrastingly, Catharine
MacKinnon, author of Only Words, believes that speech should be restricted to a certain
extent. In this paper, I would like to examine who between Mill and MacKinnon has the view
on freedom of speech which is the most in accordance with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights’ definition, why it is the case and, finally, what significance my conclusion
has.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The UDHR seems to be written with the intent to promote a democratic and egalitarian
feeling. It states one’s rights and fundamental freedoms that the United Nations believes one
should be entitled to. The thirty articles might seem straightforward at a first glance, but it is
when they are applied to particular situations that the meaning behind certain of these articles
becomes ambiguous. An example of this phenomenon can be observed with Article 19 which
states that one has “the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”1 At first, it
might seem like that the United Nations is advocating for complete free speech with no
restraints. It is with better knowledge and understanding of the other articles that one could
argue that it was not the UDHR’s intention to defend complete free speech that could be used
nefariously, as the UDHR advocates for non-discrimination in multiple other articles (by
example in Article 2 “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, …”2 and Article 7
“All are equal before the law and are entitled to without any discrimination …”3). It can be
discussed that since freedom of expression is so closely tied to some of the other rights, the
right to free speech would become limited if it conflicted with another right. One of the

1
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, accessed January 3, 2018.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
articles that can lead to this understanding is Article 1, which states that “All human beings
are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”4 It can be discussed that the
United Nations believed that, since people were supposed to act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood, the same concept would naturally be applied to Article 19. In reality, it
would prove difficult to argue that Klansmen were acting in a spirit of brotherhood while
exercising their right to complete free speech and sanctioning attacks against African-
Americans. In addition, several decades later, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This treaty saw the UN
admit that the UDHR might have been too idealistic, so the ICCPR added restraints to certain
articles of the UDHR. One of the articles affected was Article 19, which now “may therefore
be subject to certain restrictions”5 In the end, even though some do argue that the UDHR’s
articles were meant to be related and that the UDHR’s belief in non-discrimination was
supposed to be considered, I believe that since there were no explicit mentions of such in
Article 19, the UN was advocating for complete freedom of expression. Also, as they later
adopted the ICCPR, I believe that the UN tried to right their wrongs, but that they initially
supported no restraints whatsoever on Article 19. Therefore, in this paper, my interpretation
of the UDHR is that it supported complete freedom of expression, with no restraints
whatsoever, and that articles were not meant to be interconnected.

John Stuart Mill & Catharine MacKinnon

Firstly, there is a need to understand to what extent Mill and MacKinnon support freedom of
expression. Mill argues that “there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and
discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be
considered.”6 He adds onto this sentiment by writing “If all mankind minus one were of one
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had
the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”7 These two statements show us that Mill
is an advocate for a firm defence of complete liberty of expression, going to the lengths of

4
Ibid.
5
“International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” United Nations, accessed February 6, 2018.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.
6
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, ed. David Bromwich and George Kateb (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003),
86.
7
Ibid, 87.
saying that every single person deserves to have their opinion professed, no matter the
morality or fallibility of said opinion. This sentiment falls in line with my interpretation of the
UDHR’s definition of free speech. Mill and the United Nations both believe that each person
should have the right to express themselves completely freely, no matter the circumstances.
Catharine MacKinnon differs from Mill in this scenario as she does not advocate the same
extent of freedom of expression. MacKinnon states that “nowhere in the world is the law of
speech systematically sensitive to the damage done to social equality by expressive means or
to the fact that some people get a lot more speech than others.”8 As can be gathered through
the reading of MacKinnon’s work, this concept of social equality is critical and central to her
discussion on free speech. MacKinnon argues that social equality and free speech have not
developed adequately side-by-side and uses this premise to support restrictions on liberty of
expression. Therefore, MacKinnon opposes the United Nations’ idea that people have the
right to hold an opinion without any interference, as she believes that this can be detrimental
to social equality.

Following that, it is crucial to understand the reasonings behind Mill and

MacKinnon’s beliefs regarding free speech. Mill justifies his stern defence of freedom of
expression by stating that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it
is robbing the human race; posterity as well as existing generation; those who dissent from the
opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the
opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a
benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with
error.”9 In essence, Mill was explaining that complete freedom of expression is crucial seeing
as it permits continuous open discourse, which allows the truth to come to light and helps
combat falsehoods. It can be argued that Mill believed that this could lead to progress as he
saw positive results practicing the notion of open discourse with his works on the advocation
of women’s rights and political equality long before signs of gender bias started diminishing.
Mill understood that “every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have
deemed not only false but absurd; and it is certain that many opinions, now general, will be
rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.” 10 This
want for progress and search for the truth explains why Mill supported such an extensive view

8
Catharine MacKinnon, “Only Words” in Political Thought, ed. Michael Rosen and Jonathan Wolff (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999), 151.
9
Mill, On Liberty, 87.
10
Ibid, 88-89.
on free speech, and this shows that he would be in agreement with the UDHR’s definition.
Both Mill and the United Nations understand the importance of sharing ideas, no matter their
fallibility, as it provides a vehicle for the growth and progress of said ideas. Opposing this,
MacKinnon rejects this idea of unlimited expression as “The law of equality and the law of
freedom of speech are on a collision course. Free speech protections have developed
worldwide without taking seriously the problems of social inequality or the need for
substantive legal equality.”11 As I have previously established that social equality is a major
consideration for MacKinnon, this brings me to an understanding on why she believes in
limiting free speech. MacKinnon believes that one of the serious inequalities is that access to
speech is distributed to people in an unfair manner. She contends that the power of the people
who have access to speech has become increasingly exclusive, coercive, and violent due to
said speech becoming increasingly protected.12 MacKinnon adds onto to this by saying that is
it vital to understand that the less speech an individual has, the more the speech of those who
have it keeps said individual unequal.13 Comparing this to the UDHR’s definition of free
speech, it becomes visible that MacKinnon is not of the same accord as the United Nations as
the latter entity fails to consider these inequalities that are crucial to her. Even though
MacKinnon is not against the idea of free speech, she believes that it cannot be unrestricted as
the right to social equality is underdeveloped compared to the right to freedom of expression.
The UDHR also declares that one has “the right to hold opinions without interference” which
is contrasting to MacKinnon’s view that states should intervene, and not preserve a neutral
stance when inequality can be observed. She states that “expressive means of practicing
inequality can be prohibited.”14 which would be in direct opposition to the United Nations’
idea of complete free speech. These two vital criteria, the consideration of social equality and
the interference of states, has led MacKinnon to formulate a new model of free speech which
is different to Article 19 of the UDHR. In her new ideal model, “the state will have as great a
role in providing relief from injury to equality through speech and in giving equal access to
speech, as it now has in disciplining its power to intervene in that speech which manages to
get expressed.”15 This ultimately shows us that MacKinnon does not agree with the UDHR’s
definition of freedom of expression for certain reasons.

11
MacKinnon, Only Words, 151.
12
Ibid, 152.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid, 153.
15
Ibid, 154.
 Another reason for Mill’s advocation of extensive freedom of expression is that he
believes that it is directly related to the “mental well-being of mankind, hence, all their other
well-being depends.”16 This statement shows us that Mill believes that the matter of free
speech is not purely about practicing open discourse but also heavily linked to the complete
well-being of an individual. Therefore, it can be argued that Mill’s consideration for one’s
well-being is an explanation to why his view on freedom of expression is similar to the
UDHR’s view. The document was written to promote equality between all, directly affecting
the well-being of individuals. Another showcase of the similarities between Mill and the
UDHR is when Mill is noted saying “Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the
arguments for free discussion, but object to their being pushed to an extreme: not seeing that
unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.”17 Mill also
has another quote, along the same lines, which I believe to be pertinent with “If the teachers
of mankind are to be cognisant of all they ought to know, everything must be free to be
written and published without restraint.”18 Both of these quotes show us that Mill is under the
belief that complete freedom of expression is beneficial to individuals, as it allows certain
extremes to be discussed and allows said individuals to increase their knowledge. Mill
believes that complete free speech is necessary to push arguments to their logical limits. This
sharing of ideas is also central to Article 19 of the UDHR when it mentions the right to
“receive and impart information and ideas”, showing once again that Mill and the UDHR look
at the subject of free speech from a similar perspective. On the opposite side, MacKinnon
does not believe that certain extremes should fall under the protection of freedom of
expression. MacKinnon believes that “wherever equality is mandated, racial and sexual
epithets, vilification, and abuse should be able to be prohibited, unprotected by the guarantees
of free speech.”19 This shows us once again that she introduces the concept of social equality
to discuss the topic of free speech. MacKinnon applied this to the subject of pornography,
where she believes that the showing of this erotic material is damaging to women and
supports social dominance. She uses a quote from Tom Emerson to say that “imposing what
he called ‘erotic material’ on individuals against their will is a form of action that ‘has all the
characteristics of physical assault.’”20 MacKinnon adds to this sentiment by saying that
equality would prosper if these types of assault were legally punishable. This falls in line with

16
Mill, On Liberty, 118.
17
Ibid, 91.
18
Ibid, 106.
19
MacKinnon, Only Words, 153.
20
Ibid.
MacKinnon’s promotion of social equality and state intervention but opposes the UDHR’s
belief that no matter the media, individuals have the right to express themselves completely
freely. She argues that the UDHR’s model of freedom of expression protects the activities of
groups such as Nazis, Klansmen, and pornographers, but does nothing for the victims of these
groups.21 This shows another divide between MacKinnon and the United Nations.

Even though Mill does seem to be a defender of complete freedom of speech, he does
mention “one very simple principle”22, now more commonly known as the harm principle, in
which he writes that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”23
Nevertheless, it is essential to make note that it is unclear what Mill meant exactly when he
invoked the term ‘harm’. He used an example of corn dealers to conceptualise his idea of
harm.24 In said example, he mentions two distinct scenarios. The first one in which an
individual claims that a corn dealer is starving the poor, expressed in print form.25 The other
scenario in which an individual expresses the same point but, this time, in front of an angry
mob that is ready to attack the corn dealer.26 The distinction that Mill makes is that the second
scenario constitutes “a positive instigation to some mischievous act.”27 This leads me to
believe that Mill decided to differentiate indirect and direct harm, respectively. In the first
scenario, even though the corn dealer could be faced with financial or emotional harm, this
does not constitute direct harm in Mill’s eyes and, therefore, is speech that is not worthy of
being limited.28 On the other hand, in the second scenario, there is a possibility of directly
harming the corn dealer and placing his human rights in jeopardy, hence, the speech is
deemed worthy of limitation. In essence, I believe that Mill’s is stating that indirect harm is
not justification enough to limit freedom of expression and that direct harm, an undeniable
violation to the human rights of an individual, is the only justifiable time to set restrictions on
freedom of expression.. This consideration shows that Mill is not in absolute agreement with
the UDHR’s definition of complete free speech and is willing abandon his position if there is
a risk of direct harm to someone. MacKinnon certainly agrees with the sentiment that there

21
Ibid.
22
“Freedom of Speech” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified May 1, 2017.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
should be some restrictions on speech that causes harm, but her definition of harm is much
broader than Mill’s. Unlike him, MacKinnon believes that certain forms of verbal expression
that cause indirect harm should be restricted. MacKinnon says that “because society is made
of language, distinguishing talk about inferiority from verbal imposition of inferiority may be
complicated at the edges, but it is clear enough at the centre with sexual and racial
harassment, pornography, and hate propaganda.”29 These vehicles to social inequality that she
mentions at the end of the quote are worthy of speech limitation in MacKinnon’s eyes. This
shows that her view on freedom of expression is in direct opposition to the UDHR’s Article
19.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it seems that Mill and MacKinnon are advocating for two extremely distinctive
notions of freedom of expression. Mill believes in quite an extensive defense of free speech.
He believes that everyone deserves to voice their opinion, as this is necessary to push
arguments to their logical limits. The only time Mill believes in restricting free speech, hence
deviating from the UDHR’s definition, is when there is risk of direct harm. Meanwhile,
MacKinnon leans towards a notion of freedom of expression which has more restraints. She
believes that complete freedom of speech contributes to social dominance. The idea of social
equality is central to MacKinnon’s rhetoric, and she uses this as justification to advocate
against complete freedom of expression. MacKinnon believes in restricting free speech in
more scenarios than Mill, such as when there is risk of direct or indirect harm, and
additionally believes that states should have the ability to intervene. Therefore, under my
interpretation of the UDHR, this shows that John Stuart Mill is the one who has the view on
freedom of speech which is the most in accordance with the UDHR.

The significance my conclusion has and the reason to why I believe that Mill was the
most in accordance with the UDHR are closely tied. The significance of my conclusion is that
the reasoning behind my result is solely due to my interpretation of the UDHR. If one was to
be under the belief that all the articles of the UDHR were related and that Article 19 was not
supposed to be taken literally, they could have potentially come to a completely different
outcome. If we were to consider the concepts of non-discrimination and inclusion that the

29
MacKinnon, Only Words, 152.
UDHR explores, MacKinnon could have possibly been the one the most in accordance with
the UDHR’s definition of free speech. Nevertheless, due to my interpretation, it is Mill and
his quest for the truth that came out victorious.
 Bibliography

“Freedom of Speech.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified May 1, 2017.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri.

“International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” United Nations. Accessed February 6,
2018. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.

MacKinnon, Catharine. “Only Words.” In Political Thought. Edited by Michael Rosen and
Jonathan Wolff. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, Edited by David Bromwich and George Kateb. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 2003.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed January 3, 2018.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html.