Should We Let a White Supremacy Group March in a Black Neighborhood?

John Stuart Mill would say that it is okay for white supremacists to march in a black neighborhood, so long as they do not harm those living in the area, or encourage others to harm them. And so long as they do not prevent those living in the neighborhood from expressing their own opinion or marching themselves. This is because Mill argues that we are free to do what we want providing what we do does not harm others. Mill also argues that mere offense or distaste does not constitute harm, so the white supremacists would be allowed, and perhaps even encouraged by Mill to march.

Now there are problems for Mill in saying just what it means to harm someone, or the limits of encouragement that is allowable, but generally most people would perhaps agree with his views. There are however opponents that would disagree with Mill. I think we can identify three major types: one that is call 'free speech hypocrites', a second which could be called 'free speech humanitarians'. Both of these work within Mill’s framework and disagree with the details of Mill's theory. But a third opponent is one who would reject entirely what Mill has to say about liberty.

Free speech hypocrites are all those like the white supremacists, who argue the case for freedom of speech as a constitutional right under law, so that they can march, but only appeal to the value of free speech in order to actively deny such rights to others, namely those living in the black neighborhood. Such opponents would not accept the consequence of Mill's view that everyone has the freedom to do what they want. They would not want others to be free to march against them.

The second group agrees with Mill that liberty is a good thing and free speech should be permitted, but disagree with Mill that whatever its content, free speech does no harm. They would argue that racism, homophobia, fascism, and other prejudiced beliefs are harmful and should be prevented from being freely expressed. The problem here is that no matter what anyone says it will offend someone; should we therefore ban all differing opinion, or offensive behavior?

The third opponent does not agree with Mill that free speech or individual liberty is necessarily a good state of affairs. They usually would argue that individual freedom leads to unfulfilled lives. Such opponents would find support in the works of Plato and Aristotle, who argue the need to live the Good Life, a life that is defined by the role one plays within a society. Thomas Hobbes would also disagree with Mill. He thinks that individual freedom must be sacrificed to a powerful sovereign if those individuals are to avoid war and conflict.

I do not think that Hobbes would allow the white supremacists to march, if the march would lead to frustration or harm the black community, because it would them mean that there was an imbalance in the freedom given up by some. If this imbalance was corrected by the sovereign allowing the blacks to have their own march, it would lead to frustration on the other side, possibly resulting in conflict, and so the sovereign would not be doing his job. The only way the sovereign could protect all the members of society would be to ban the march in the first place. Freedom is given up for the sake of peace and survival.