Liberty, Freedom of Expression and Literature

 Introduction 

John Stuart Mill's philosophy provides one of the more comprehensive insights.   

Mill argues the only time coercion is acceptable- (by that I mean ensuring or persuading someone to do something they are unwilling to do or take into consideration ) is when a person's behaviour harms other people—otherwise, societies should treat diversity with respect.

His Utilitarian approach contained in his essay on Liberty champion’s individuals and society rights to embrace unpopular opinions since they may turn out to be correct or successfully challenge entrenched ideas to underpin progress. 

Liberty according to Mill is integral to progress for two main reasons. First, the unpopular opinion may be right and secondly it enhances debate leading one to better understand opinions. 

Some of the problems that emerge from his Utilitarian approach is that it is often impossible to determine if a work in fact will causes widespread harm until well after the event of the published work. One sees the growing capacity for dangerous conspiracies that continue to spread misinformed views all hatched under the context of free speech. The damage is sustained long before harm can be ascertained.

In that respect some sort of community standard seems necessary other than purely the subjective idea not to cause harm. 

In Australia diversity and inclusiveness of individuals is now recognised in legislation to ensure one is free to make personal choices about ones identity and to enshrine

Privacy provisions that prohibit non- consensual personal information being disclosed, 

Individuals cannot be forced to identify and state their pronouns, disclose their sexuality, or express personal preferences which contravenes anti-discrimination laws in existence. 

Authors need to be aware of these provisions to avoid offence but it seems an overreaction to go back and amend past books and publications to conform  to these recent laws, analogous to tearing down old statues of those prominent figures now considered offensive in the light of their past actions. 

But one obviously needs to be familiar with these laws when writing an autobiography to avoid offence. Generally speaking fiction writers presume those reading their works accept the fictional basis so they are free mostly except for porn or disgsting material.  

As far as autobiography is concerned a writer’s position is no different to individual rights in everyday life - the freedoms and restrictions under the law from which ignorance is no defence. 

Mill’s concept of individualism 

However, Mill does recognise there needs to be some brakes within governance. He realizes that a society that becomes completely free of any constraints inevitably will succumb to a powerful minority who will override an individual's basic rights and curtail freedom.  

Liberty is compatible with an enjoyment of freedom enshrined in law and by regulation. Hence a democracy needs to ensure individual rights of expression are enshrined in its governance and only curtailed where outcomes can be demonstrated to be harmful according to Mill.   

He sees the individual as paramount in governance to take precedence over the state.  

Hence, the state exists for the individuals rather than the other way around. This assumes a degree of individual education within a properly constructed society. That might lead one to argue that concept entails a leap of faith. But Mill does acknowledge such an idea of self-sufficiency cannot apply to children and some of those with limited mental or physical capability. 

He advocates warnings against dangerous practices and poisons rather than making them illegal or banning their use. 

Liberty and limits on powerful groups are compatible aims. 

But to reiterate the question of liberty implies equality to achieve the individual’s participation which may call in turn involve far more intervention than possibly Mill envisaged.  

How can people have a say if there are no laws and effective governance to ensure minorities and the disadvantaged are able to be heard by those in power. One powerful person’s freedom might enslave another to silence.    

Hence the necessary regulatory oversight is imperative if the rights of all individuals are to be maintained.

Entertaining entertainment as one way not to avoid harm to others.

Within the bounds of entertainment (as to how we define it) it is hard to see how literature, films or whatever media is involved can cause harm when produced purely for entertainment and the reader is suitably informed. Of course there must be some limits set as a form to restrict distribution to the vulnerable, children and where community standards necessarily give rise to a ban on disgusting material. That involves the subjective definition as to what is entertainment or art and what isn’t.    

Moral purpose and intended outcomes 

I am reminded of the words of Mark Twain who emphatically denied that no person should ever read anything into his work other than it was just a story intended to entertain.  

For it seems that this view of writers, that aim to entertain can hardly be construed as causing harm. Furthermore it is common practice for writers to include a note that no characters in any novel represent real people and that any perceived resemblance is unintentional. 

In other instances an author might legitimately engage in a social challenge to highlight injustices of one kind or another within the fictional characters that make up the narrative, so as to confine to the fictional narrative and avoid personalization. Even so one generally might want to present both sides to any matter which is bound to create more interest and integrity to avoid the author's bias to be on display.    

Autobiographical and memoirs are always subjective in the eyes of the author 

The degree to which we see ourselves will always differ as to how we are perceived. So that if you wanted to understand the real personal nature of someone an autobiographical account may not be a good starting point. If you were afforded the luxury of being able to talk freely with those who knew that person well you may have a better perspective but even so memories are not always reliable. 

Ultimately the author’s ego is potentially going to show matters in their best light unless a disciplined factual approach is taken which concentrates on events and outcomes to avoid judgements on people and so forth. It’s hardly surprising that many celebrities’ autobiographical accounts invoke hostility between siblings after publication whose perspectives markedly differ.  

A good example of how to avoid such pitfalls is acclaimed novelist P. D. James ‘A Time to be in Earnest’  who is described by reviewers as a rich “fragrant of autobiography”.

She concentrates on her life’s experiences- beginning with school days, being happily married, the tragedy of her husband’s mental illness and the great thrill of her first novel being published.

We learn something about her as a person inclusive of an obsession with Jane Austin and her ideas on the evolution of the detective novel as a form of popular entertainment, together with her fears it might entertain ideas of crime amongst readers which she aims to overcome with moral outcomes. 

Herein we see the advantage of an author seeking to be entertaining and interesting to provide insights into her area of expertise with glimpses of her desires for ethical outcomes.

There is an absence of controversial judgments about those close to her or matters bound to stir up hostility. 

Q & A – Possible answers to questions  

What are the responsibilities of a writer?

The concept of authors looking to entertain readers seems to offer the best perspectives of not causing harm, to concentrate on factual and or perspectives that don’t involve controversy. Rather the author’s fictional characters are the ones challenging social issues where applicable.  In Australia diversity and inclusiveness of individuals is now recognised in legislation to ensure one is free to make personal choices about ones identity and to enshrine Privacy provisions that prohibit non- consensual personal information being disclosed, 

Individuals cannot be forced to identify and state their pronouns, disclose their sexuality, or express personal preferences which contravenes anti-discrimination laws in existence. 

Authors need to be aware of these provisions to avoid offence but it seems an overreaction to go back and amend past books and publications to conform to these recent laws, analogous to tearing down old statues of those prominent figures now considered offensive in the light of their past actions. 

An a emergent modern day phenomenon for fiction writers to pragmatically embrace the concept “anything goes” since it’s fictional and you need to understand that if you’re a  reader of fiction, so that’s the end of the matter. 

Similarly as far as autobiography is concerned a writer’s position is no different to individual rights in everyday life - the freedoms and restrictions under the law from which ignorance is no defence. 

How should a creative person approach their craft? How far

should they go to avoid offence (if at all)?

Some acknowledge they have responsibilities and what about a balanced approach?

To add a moral dimension that can be effectively woven into the story by way of a parable or in a narrative it is best to avoid pointing the finger - at individuals or causes. Where it is known to be a controversial topic allow the fictional characters to engage in a balanced debate to show both sides and thus avoid offence. But one obviously also needs to be familiar with new laws when writing an autobiography. From a pragmatic perspective a fictional account needs to be accepted as such if you’re a reader of fiction.

What degree of freedom of expression do you give yourself? Offence be damned? Truth (my version of it) at all costs?

Artistic integrity paramount? Minimizing harm to others? Compromise?

When writing an Autobiography one preferably aims to be entertaining and interesting about you life’s journey by providing insights into your area of experiences - glimpses of your desires or aims that shape your narrative. That possibly excludes any adverse judgments about those close to you or to entertain one sided options on controversial matters bound to stir up hostility. Ultimately one has to be careful not to allow one’s ego to potentially show matters in terms of self-interest as in the best possible light always, but rather to opt for a factual approach to concentrate more on describing the events, their outcomes and feelings at the time. 

To reiterate a good example of how to avoid such pitfalls is acclaimed novelist P.D James who “Time to Be in Earnest” described by reviewers as a rich “fragrant of autobiography” “where she concentrates on her life’s experiences- beginning with school days, being happily married, the tragedy of her husband’s mental illness and the great thrill of her first novel being published.

We learn something about her as a person inclusive of an obsession with Jane Austin and her ideas on the evolution of the detective novel to become a popular entertainment for many, together with her fears it might entertain ideas of crime which she aims to overcome with moral outcomes. 

Herein we see the advantage of an author seeking to be entertaining and interesting in the absence of harsh judgments about those close to her or to talk about controversial matters presented in such an emphatic manner it is bound to stir up hostility.