Mill & Stephen on "Obscene"

In regards to the Law & Order episode “Obscene” John Stuart Mill would have likely sided with the shock jock BJ. A literal interpretation of Mill’s famous Harm Principle indicates that only those actions that cause direct harm to another person and/or their property constitute an action deserving prevention through legal means. Mill further clarifies his intentions by nothing that protecting one from damaging their own moral or physical health does not represent sufficient ground to create legislation. While Mill may have disagreed with what BJ said about Jessie, he would have been in support of BJ’s liberty to speak freely because his actions directly caused no harm. It was the conscious decision of Danny to sneak into Jessie’s dressing room and take advantage of her, not BJs. Danny should be the one punished for his crime; Furthermore, Carolyn should have been found guilty for shooting BJ. The mistrial is an affront to justice and liberty everywhere because it legitimates subjective moral vigilante action, which is a slippery slope to say the least.

James Fitzjames Stephen would have likely had a very different opinion on the matter than Mill’s. From reading an excerpt of his Liberty, Equality, Fraternity one sees that Stephen is much more concerned with law fostering societal good rather than individual liberty. He would want to legislate BJ’s ability to speak freely, and in doing so limit speech that society deems vulgar and incendiary. Stephen has a sense of legal moralism that underlies his philosophy and policy towards law. In his mind, law should be there to cultivate good citizens and a moral society, thus it should also punish actions that undermine society’s morality. Where Mill makes individual liberty paramount, Stephen makes societal good. To be fair, his condemnation of BJ does not mean justify Carolyn’s criminal actions. He may feel more sympathy for her than Mill, but in the end, she too committed a crime.

In my opinion, I think Mill’s stance on the subject is more valid. While Stephen’s intentions are laudable, I believe that moral issues are too subjective to legislate about unless they cause harm. Mill’s harm principle makes individuals directly responsible for their actions, while Stephen allows people to blame society. I think Carolyn should the blame for Danny’s actions, not BJ or the media or society. It is her responsibility as a mom to care for her child and instruct him on good morals. Maybe, if she had spent less time crusading for her agenda and more time being a parent, then Danny would not have made the unethical decision that he unfortunately did. In the end, Danny made his choice regardless of the law (rape is illegal after all); so, how could more law limiting free speech stop this type of crime in the future?