Is Government Control Ever Appropriate?

In Mill's "On Liberty," he discusses his opinion that no one (especially not the government) should be able to limit or pressure another person's expression of his or her opinion. To him, this is an illegitimate action and something that cannot be justified by mankind. He believes that since people are infallible, it is not right to silence others because they may be right, and we just don't know it yet. Also, he thinks that if we do not debate topics, then the true meaning of something may be lost. Furthermore, the truth is oftentimes in between opposing opinions. 

http://book.filipinofutures.com/liberalism/on-liberty-john-stuart-mill

One argument from critics (one that Mill even addresses) is that the duty of the government is to uphold ideas that are valuable to the well being of society. If something is going on that is hurting the general population, isn't the job of the government to protect society by banning that action? A situation where this idea has been debated heavily occurred earlier this year. The New York City Board of Health banned the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks in September of this year, hoping to reduce obesity rates. This is the first ban of its kind to occur in the United States, thus sparking a huge debate over the ethics of the ban. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqWzOMPoAl0

There are two sides to this story. On one hand, the intentions of the ban are obviously sound and with the right attitude in mind. With obesity in NYC at over 50% of the population, the citizens should cut back on soda and other unhealthy foods, as it is not healthy to be obese. If the ban has good intentions and is meant to protect Americans, shouldn't people just allow it to happen? On the other hand, however, many would argue that it is too invasive of the government to tell people what they can and can't consume and need to let people be free to decide what they put in their bodies themselves. This is the side that Mill would agree with because he doesn't think that it is ever right for the government to limit people or tell them what to do with their personal lives. People are entitled to their own opinions and free will to live their lives and treat their bodies however they would like, as long as they are not harming anyone else. 

http://gameofroles.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/thank-god-for-911/

Another controversy that I find appropriate to bring up with this discussion is the issue of the Westboro Baptist Church. This church in Kansas is known for its extreme ideologies especially regarding homosexuality, war, and Judaism. They are famous for their hateful protests in which they often go to soldier's funerals to protest war and celebrate the deaths of soldiers. In the third chapter of "On Liberty," Mill discusses that actions should be monitored a little more closely than opinions because they have the ability to harm others. The debate here is over if members of the Westboro Baptist Church should have the right to go to these personal funerals and events aimed at creating acceptance of gays to protest, and voice their hateful opinions. Mill does not think that people should be able to do things that act as a "nuisance to other people," and many argue that this is exactly what they are doing; causing emotional pain and distress to others. On the flip side, they are exercising their right as American citizens to the freedom of speech and this should never be inhibited in some people's opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xUzE2SrtKM

The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, stating that the First Amendment protects all forms of speech and debate, no matter how distasteful. It is an American principle that our citizens are allowed the freedom of speech and expression, no matter what that opinion may be. I am against absolutely everything that this church stands for but I see that it would have been un-American to limit their freedom of speech. It is ironic, however, that they hate the country that is one of the only ones that would allow for them to protest in this manner.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should have decided in this way?

Do you think the government has the right to establish bans such as the soda ban as long as they are put in place to protect our citizens? 

Is it ever appropriate for the government to limit the people?