Myers Myers did would not have hurt others in any way whatsoever. Had his actions not been silenced they could have led to the discovery of the true opinions of employees, which could have possibly led to changes in office procedures. Granted, Myers questionnaire could have possibly offended managers in the office, but according to Mill, all controversial speech causes offense and this is not an excuse for censorship. Speech offends people that do not agree with it and if we permit the majority to censor anything and everything that they do not agree with, we run the risk of silencing a possible truth. In Myers case, it is possible that Connick disagreed with both the questionnaire itself, and the results that came from it.

Terminating Myers was a way for Connick to censor speech that disagreed with his own beliefs. Furthermore, Myers became an example to other employees, illustrating what could happen to them if they attempted to speak out against the attitudes of company hierarchy. I agree with Mill’s logic because I do not think the government, an employer, or anybody else should have the right to silence people’s opinions. Myers’ questionnaire, regardless of what it said, was a statement in free speech. Even had he sent out an article denouncing Connick there would still be no excuse for his termination. Freedom of speech includes the right of expression.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Look in any newspaper from the past two weeks and you will most surely find some sort of political cartoon making fun of one of the presidential candidates in this year’s election. I agree with Mill that the protection of free speech is necessary in order to reveal the true “truth.” What I mean is that everyday scientists are coming up with new “proven” theories about this effect or that, all of which are written up as truths in scientific journals. Then, twenty years down the road, a new theory arises and the old “truth” becomes a falsity. The same is the case with Myers. By silencing him, Connick prevents the possibility of improvement within the office.

If progress becomes stagnant, office procedures will become outdated and useless. With time, this can eventually lead to the destruction of the entire office. On the other hand, by permitting Myers to distribute his questionnaire and then report his findings to a higher power, he ends up helping the company by pointing out weak points within the office so that they may be corrected. The silencing of Myers’ speech puts all American’s civil liberties at risk and this must be stopped before censorship takes over and we find our wonderful Democracy transforming into a dictatorship. Philosophy Essays.