Hitler's Expression Of Social Credibility

In an idealistic world we would use our negative liberty and given right, to speak freely without consequence; yet, the right to speak freely should be imposed on by positive liberties and considered in terms of the potential to elicit harm or offence to others in society. Restricting individuals on their speech based on their level of social influence is practicable, as the more influence they have, the greater the potential for harm and offence to others. There is a need to not just preserve society, but also to protect those not yet matured; at the same time, individuals, of any level of influence, have the right to express their own opinion. Expression of opinion is important in the growth of both individuals and society; as in effect,
alternate views are regarded. Subscribing to an educated and informed view to avoid consequent ignorance would be best practice for all individuals; however, this is more pertinent to those who hold high levels of social influence; given their stature, ability to role model and potential to be condemned.

Social influence will be defined as the use of power in any sense to persuade others to the same viewpoint; however, for the purpose of this essay, power to influence a large group, community or society. A larger audience increases the risk of escalation; therefore, the potential to exploit a cause to the detriment of others is a genuine peril.

Consider the German Nazi regime of 1933 - 1945, a time when Hitler (politician and leader of Germany) was able to influence a society through the Nazi propaganda to adopt racial hatred. The example of Hitlers influence is extreme, but confirms the impact one person with a high level of influence can potentially have on another individual, community, country or even the world. It is important to note that Hitlers influence was not limited to simple public media outlets, he was also able to influence policy and education amongst other areas; nonetheless, it is suggested that media propaganda aided Hitlers movement by allowing him to strengthen his position with confirmation of belief for those who had prior prejudice (Voigtlander & Voth, 2015, p. 7931).

Hitler used the youth to his advantage by falsely educating and moulding their young susceptible minds to match his position (Voigtlander & Voth, 2015, p.
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.
190).

During a similar period Theordore Newcombe conducted the “Bennington Study” which provided further evidence of the ability to influence young minds. In contrast to using influence to sabotage the young mind, Newcombe educated the participants in liberalism. The experiment outcomes showed that continued influence over a period of time, in particular with youth, can result in attitudes that last a lifetime (as cited in Social Influence, 2008, p. 597).

Given youths are more easily influenced than their senior counterparts; possibly due to immaturity, on going education and lack of general life experience; the importance of acceptance and the implications of social influence can potentially be heightened. Furthermore, Insko’s investigation into the desire individuals have for wanting to be right and wanting to be liked; concludes, that when in groups that participants would conform in the hope of being correct in their judgments as a group, and in order to be liked by the other group members; ultimately, resulting in a higher self esteem (as cited in Social Influence, 2008, p. 599).

Consider now, a group of people who are easily influenced, find the need to be right and the need to be liked of significance, who will follow the majority, and have the potential to have their attitudes altered for the remainder of their lives. Introduce celebrities; people they admire, want to be like, the attraction of the beautiful, rich and the famous, and the potential for social influence would appear to be immense. Celebrities (even if unassumed) are role models. Some are positive role models, inspiring people to do their best, to help others, to accept others and to commit to life goals. While others are not providing the motivation to be better, but rather show casing a luxurious lifestyle of drugs, alcohol, cheating and general strategies of avoidance (Price-Mitchell, 2014, para. 4-5). Celebrities themselves have the right to live their lives as they see fit within the confinements of the law, but need to be aware that the public arena, they have access to provides them an audience they may not be aware is even listening. Those not yet adults need protection from both themselves and these potentially perverse external influences (Mill, 1859, p. 22).

Those who hold high levels of social influence, just like the rest of society have their own views and opinions to express.
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
them-self.

A recent example, saw channel 9 Today show presenter Sonia Kruger express her opinion on national television, after the recent terrorist attack in Nice, France. Kruger referred to an article by social and political commentator Andrew Bolt, where western nations with increased Muslim immigration levels were at higher risk of terrorist attacks, she continued by expressing her sentiment to see Australian borders closed to further Muslim migrants (Bolt, 2016). The backlash Kurger received was instant, and saw her issuing a public response the next day acknowledging that her views “may have been extreme” (Sedghi, 2016). While Kruger’s comments were not politically correct; soon after, Bolt advocated that she spoke what many Australians were thinking, and was vilified for expressing this view. The link between Muslim immigration and terrorist attacks was defended by Bolt; as was, Kruger’s right to discuss her concerns about terrorist threats and the impact they have on Australian security (Bolt, 2016). The right to discuss the issue should be allowed; however, given the political sensitivity it would have been advisable for Kruger to ensure she had conducted sufficient research on the topic and the potential backlash, prior to airing her views. Kruger encountered accusations of ‘hate speech’, and without doubt even if worded wisely would have caused offence to others. It is almost impossible to ensure that the offence does not occur when dealing with free speech; however, it is possible to identify if a view or statement could potentially offend a large number of people. When the potential for offence impacts a large component of society, the speaker needs to assess if it is more important to cause offence or give the speech. Offence, is often a choice individuals can choose to accept or ignore, unlike harm which is inflicted on the individual (van Mill, 2016, “3.3”). Positive liberty could assist by reducing the risk of bullying and vilification of an individual; nevertheless, the individual should also be aware of the potential harm and offence that can be caused when disseminating views in a public forum.

Many philosophers see education as a key element in achieving freedom. Education ensures we learn from the past and are constantly looking for ways to better the future. To force education is a positive liberty that allows each educated individual the knowledge to make more informed decisions and form more enlightened opinions (Brink, Winter 2016, “3.4”, para. 1). When considering an individual with social influence, it would be pertinent to ensure an educated view on the subject matter intended to be publicly announced. This would role model good practice to others, assisting with putting forward a well considered viewpoint for discussion and reducing the risk for condemnation by the public and others in power.

Reflecting on the points discussed, to permit negative liberty of freedom of speech opens a realm of harmful possibilities for individuals and the society we live in. In turn, to restrict speech; so much so, that unfavourable discussions are not held, is equally as hazardous, as those with the power to implement positive liberties must always be accountable to society and questioned on their reasoning to enforce such restrictions. Everyone can benefit from positive liberties; in the hope that, speech is not harmful or potentially inciting hatred, and educated viewpoints, alternatives and ramifications are considered. Restricting free speech to avoid past atrocities, while ensuring free speech, remains sufficiently open to allow discussion of alternate viewpoints and new ideas would be a good use of positive liberty.