Publishing Mohammad’s Cartoons: Bringing Mill Back In the Debate

Do the illustrations of Mohammad appeared in some Western media outlets deserve protection within the realm of freedom of expression or does it count as hate speech that asks for limitations? The publication of series of controversial cartoons depicting Mohammad in a Danish newspaper in 2006 provoked Muslim mobs all around the world, and subsequently where to put the limits to freedom of expression again became a matter of intense discussion in liberal societies. These discussions escalated after Islamic terrorists targeted Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine that published Mohammed’s cartoons, in 2015. Yet, this issue has only been debated with contemporary perspectives neglecting John Stuart Mill and his Utilitarian ideas, the first and most orthodox discourse in defense of free speech. Mill advocates that the only rightful limitation to the actions of individuals can be on the moral basis of preventing physical harm to others, which is now mostly cited as the Harm Principle. By using a Millian rhetoric based on the Harm Principle, this paper aims to demonstrate that the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo are not beyond the domain of free speech. It is argued that this incident does not satisfy the conditions of harm as understood by Mill, since abstract artificial structures (i.e. religions, ideologies) constructed by men, without exception, are neither subjected to physical harm nor do they enjoy any sense of inviolability. Thus this paper asserts that the opinion expressed in Charlie Hebdo and other similar cases does not satisfy the ‘Harm Principle’ of John S. Mill no matter how much psychological shock or disturbance it might create in a certain community.