Bell on Bill C-36: Hate Speech vs. Free Speech Debate
This paper engages with M.C. Bell's philosophical defense of hate speech restrictions, which draws on John Stuart Mill's harm principle and Greatest Happiness Principle to argue that bigoted speech causes genuine harm and therefore does not merit free speech protection. The paper focuses on Canada's proposed Bill C-36, which seeks to define and deter online hate speech. While acknowledging Bell's empirical evidence of harm to victims, the paper argues that Mill's harm principle is inherently malleable, susceptible to majoritarian abuse, and represents a slippery slope toward authoritarianism. Drawing on labeling theory, paternalism critiques by Dworkin, and political examples, the paper contends that hate speech can express genuine opinion, that harm is subjectively determined, and that restricting speech online ultimately threatens free expression for all.
- Introduction: Bill C-36, Bell's thesis, and paper's counter-argument
- Bell's Argument for Restricting Hate Speech: Bell applies Mill's harm principle to hate speech
- Critique of Mill's Harm Principle: Harm principle is open-ended and majority-driven
- Labeling Theory and the Dangers of Hate Speech Laws: Labels suppress dissent and contradict free speech
- Paternalism and the Limits of Utilitarian Ethics: Paternalism and utilitarianism lack universal standards
- Upshot: The Trade-Off Between Freedom and Safe Spaces: Hate speech laws trade freedom for regulated safety
- Conclusion: Understanding, not regulation, overcomes social division
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper directly engages with a named philosopher's argument (Bell) while simultaneously connecting it to live legislation (Bill C-36), giving it both theoretical and policy relevance.
- It uses a concrete, recurring example — the Palestinian-rights activist accused of antisemitism — to ground abstract claims about harm, labeling, and the subjectivity of hate speech determinations.
- The paper fairly acknowledges Bell's empirical evidence before systematically contesting her framework, demonstrating awareness of the opposing position rather than dismissing it outright.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a philosophical counterargument structure: it restates the target argument in its strongest form, concedes its valid points, and then identifies a foundational flaw — here, the open-endedness of "harm" in Mill's principle. This technique, combined with the slippery slope and labeling theory critiques, shows how to challenge an ethical framework without reducing the argument to a simple value disagreement.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a legislative context and thesis statement, then summarizes Bell's position faithfully before mounting a multi-part critique across the body sections. The defense of thesis moves from abstract (Mill's conceptual weakness) to concrete (empirical asymmetry, labeling theory, paternalism), and a brief "upshot" section draws out real-world implications before the conclusion ties the threads together. This progression from theory to application is a reliable model for undergraduate philosophy papers.
Introduction
Bill C-36 is a proposal to deter online hate speech by enabling victims to make complaints more easily. The bill offers a clarification of what online hate speech is and describes it as a type of discrimination. The new definition states that hate speech is "content that expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group" (Boisvert, 2021). Opponents argue that the bill would "just ensure bureaucrats in Ottawa are bogged down with frivolous complaints about tweets" (Boisvert, 2021). One question that arises from this issue is to what extent a society's speech can be policed in practical terms before the process becomes too taxing. Another issue is whether such a bill represents a slippery slope toward more draconian measures to reduce free speech.
Hate speech regulation has become an increasingly contested topic in liberal democracies. Bell argues that, using Mill's harm principle and ethical framework, harmless speech — no matter how offensive — cannot be restricted by social coercion; however, bigoted insults are harmful and "fail to express a genuine opinion, and so do not deserve free speech protection" (p. 1). Bell would likely view Bill C-36 as a positive step toward curbing harmful hate speech. This paper argues, by contrast, that hate speech can express a genuine opinion — even if others disagree with it — and that the purpose of speech is to have an effect, even a hurtful one at times.
People tend to associate hate speech with bullying, but what if a person uses hurtful words to criticize a dominant group and that group labels the speech as hate speech, thereby suppressing the speaker's voice? This often occurs when people criticize Israel for its occupation of Palestinian land — critics are accused of using hate speech because their words hurt an entire group. The problem with what Bell and Bill C-36 represent is not whether bullying weaker groups is wrong, but rather that policing speech online creates a situation in which free speech can be broadly restricted.
Bell's Argument for Restricting Hate Speech
Bell's argument is that hate speech is hurtful, and she cites empirical evidence to demonstrate its harmful effect on targets. This evidence bolsters the view that hate speech is a form of bullying, which no polite or fair society should tolerate. Because hate speech is a form of bullying, she argues, it should be prevented. Her point has merit: bullies have no right to act as such because what they are doing is wrong, and a person has a right to act morally and for the common good. No one has a right to do what is wrong — that is the basis of all law. Bell accordingly contends that "we should use Mill's harm principle to set the boundary for unregulated free speech, and Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) to regulate speech that threatens unconsented to harm" (p. 3).
Bell's argument rests on Mill's harm principle, developed in response to the possibility of tyranny of the majority. Mill states: "That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (p. 223). Bell thus reasons that conduct that is harmful can be discouraged through social coercion — that is, through the application of laws that prohibit and penalize it. Given this reasoning, it is plausible that she would support Bill C-36.
Critique of Mill's Harm Principle
Mill's harm principle is problematic because it can be applied endlessly. There is no inherent limit to what a society could judge to be harmful to others, and this is being witnessed today on a global stage. A person who does not wear a mask, for instance, can be accused of harming others by spreading disease, and his freedom to engage with society is curtailed. This is the harm principle in action — and also an example of the kind of tyranny of the majority that Mill himself warned against. There is often no meaningful debate about such issues; the dominant group determines that certain people pose a danger to society and therefore can have their freedoms restricted. People who agree with the dominant group have no objection to this, but those who differ have no recourse except to submit or face punishment. Mill's harm principle provides no mechanism by which the non-dominant group can effectively challenge the dominant group's claims about what constitutes harm.
There is also the question of how harm is determined. Anyone can claim to be harmed by anything or anyone. Bell cites empirical evidence showing that hate speech hurts its victims, but she does not cite empirical evidence showing that the victims of hate speech may have hurt those who use it. One could argue that when a person engages in hate speech, it is sometimes because he has felt violated or wronged by the target of his speech. To illustrate this, consider again the example of someone criticizing Israel for occupying Palestinian land. Roger Waters, for instance, has been very vocal about this occupation, as have many Palestinians. They are hurt by the occupation — yet when they criticize Israel as a whole, they are frequently labeled as antisemitic and their words classified as hate speech (ADL, 2020). Why is their pain at seeing Palestine occupied deemed less legitimate than the pain Israelis or Jews worldwide feel when Israel is criticized? The point is that people can be hurt in ways that empiricists do not measure or evaluate. It is unfair to examine only the hurt experienced by designated victims of hate speech while ignoring the possibility that those accused of using hate speech are themselves hurting.
Conclusion
Mill's utilitarian philosophy and the principle of harm that Bell cites as justification for restricting hate speech represent a slippery slope into the very sort of authoritarianism that Mill himself sought to discourage. Hate speech may be hurtful to its victims, as Bell demonstrates through empirical evidence. However, it is equally reasonable to suggest that those who use hate speech — or who are accused of using it — have themselves been hurt by the targets of their speech. The example of the Palestinian-rights activist accused of using hate speech against Israel or Jewish people has been invoked throughout this paper to illustrate that point. Division between groups is not something that can be regulated away. To overcome division, understanding is needed — not more labeling.
References
ADL. (2020). Roger Waters extends his legacy of antisemitic rhetoric. Retrieved from https://www.adl.org/blog/roger-waters-extends-his-legacy-of-antisemitic-rhetoric
Bell, M. C. (2021). John Stuart Mill's harm principle and free speech: Expanding the notion of harm. Utilitas, 33(2), 162–179.
Boisvert, N. (2021). Ottawa outlines new legislation to define and crack down on online hate speech. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hate-speech-bill-c36-1.6077606
Cudd — Taking drugs seriously — liberal paternalism.
Lovett, F. (2009). Mill on consensual domination. In C. L. Ten (Ed.), Mill's On Liberty (pp. 123–137). Cambridge University Press.
Dworkin, G. (1972). Paternalism. The Monist, 56, 64–84.
Mill, J. S. Selections from On Liberty.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.