Assignment 9

1. What, according to Mill, is the major problem for a democracy?
John Sturt Mill believes in Utilitarianism; make many people happy as possible and equal compromise. He argues that the problem with democracy is that not enough right are given to people, such as voting. He claims that the higher class will have majority power than lower class. He also wanted social Liberty so people can limit the government power, so that no harm can be done to the people.

2. Mill believes that not all laws are justified. Why not? Can you think of any existing laws that violate Mill’s principle? Do you agree or disagree with Mill? Why?
I do believe that not all laws are justified such as driving on different side of road to avoid an accident. To shoot someone, the law is justified, but to break the law such as avoiding the accident, than not all laws are justified.

3. How does Mill justify the freedom of expression?
Mill claims that Freedom of expression is needed because he claims that not all statements are true and not all statements are false, the best way for it to be refuted by is seeing the statement through different perspective. He believes that it will solve problems better if freedom of expression is given.

4. Freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment; are there any cases of free expression, which are not protected by the First Amendment? Do you think freedom of expression should be unlimited?
Freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment but in situation where you yell “fire” in a crowd, and there isn’t fire is not protected by first amendment. Of course it is a freedom of speech but it cause harm to many other people. I think freedom of speech should be limited, there are many people who take the statement “freedom of speech” to an extent, which cause emotional damage to others and cause more harm.

5. Some scholars have suggested that the cases in which the courts have permitted states to limit religious freedom nearly always involve activities important to minority religious groups: the use of peyote by Native Americans, the practice of polygamy among Mormons and Muslims, the refusal to salute the flag among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. These critics contend that the courts would not be likely to permit similar restrictions if they impacted “mainstream” religious groups in America, such as Christians or Jews. Is this criticism fair?I perceived this situation unfair because if one religion is permitted with a restriction than all religion should have the same restriction. There are many different types of religion and to claim that “mainstream” religions group will not likely to face same restriction is not a valid argument. It is unfair.