7933). This example alone; emphasizes, that speech itself can result in harm. Society has a moral obligation to intervene to restrict free speech and provide protection from such reprehensible intolerance's being perpetrated (Jacobson, 2000); for this reason, individuals must forfeit negative liberties for progression in a free society (Berlin, 1958, p. 29). Berlin (1958) raises a key question, about who should impede our liberty (p. 2), this is the flip side of the complex argument of free speech, to have positive liberties implemented, requires trust in the governments and politicians we elect. Mill (1859) supports a cautious approach to the power rendered to a government or overriding power (p. …show more content…
Mill indicated that social pressure could stifle the views of others, as people pushed their plight to censor unwanted views; resulting in, an atrophied individual (as cited by van Mill, 2016). Mill conceptualised that it was important to be able to discuss, debate and share opinions without risk of penalty in order to progress the development of an individual (as cited by Jacobson, 2000, p. 295). Taking this argument into account and considering the diverse roles of those with social power; it still seems, the need for positive liberties are justified, not only for the security of society, but also for the protection of the speaker