Justified in Silencing?

Some pretty awful things are happening in the Middle East as we speak. A struggle between the Hamas and Israel has dominated the scene recently. It's important to note that this has been going on for much longer than just the last three weeks. However, it has now come to the public eye. Regardless of who you support (Israel or the Hamas/Palestinians or neither), it is a terrible situation where many innocent people are dying - not just military personnel, but also civilians. This is something that Just War Theorists are analyzing much more deeply than I will; for me, it will suffice to say that at least some innocent people are dying.

The Hamas are shooting missiles into Israel, and Israel is shooting missiles back into Hamas territory. Check out this video on the Iron Dome defense system that Israel is now using to intercept missiles from the Hamas:

(Note: the Hamas control basically the Gaza Strip section of Israel). Just War Theorists will argue and argue about who was justified first and who was justified second and et cetera; this leads me to conclude that, at the very least, it is a complicated issue. It leads me to believe that neither side is obviously correct. Consequently, people have quite a few diverse opinions here in Ann Arbor:

 and around the world:

I'd like to argue for free speech (specifically in the United States) when protesting Israel or protesting the Hamas. First, I'd like to point out a quote by J.S. Mill:

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." [cited below]
 

I think this is an extremely powerful quote that advocates free speech. In general, I think freedom of speech is one of (maybe the) most important rights that we are granted here in the United States. It is the predecessor for other important freedoms such as of religion and of free press. Most people, speaking on general terms, agree that free speech is something that should be supported.

However, people like to be right. And they don't like to be told they're wrong. This leads people to single out certain circumstances and say that freedom of speech should not be allowed. I think this is reasonable, but flawed. In my opinion, the best argument against free speech is the utilitarian argument. It goes something like this: Free speech can often create more harm to others than it creates positive side effects. So, in our Middle East example, it says something like: Free speech by [Israel/the Hamas supporters] hurts the other side, more than it benefits the side enacting their free speech. This is reasonable; sometimes (perhaps usually) free speech does hurt someone. And hurts them fairly badly. (Here is one example that I find particularly heinous.)

I still argue that these harmful opinions should be allowed to be advocated by these people. The job of our government (the people who grant us free speech) is not to be utilitarian. The job is to allow for innovation and diverse opinions among our citizens. This right cannot temporarily be put on hold to save a certain group of people from the harm that is inflicted to them (Keep in mind that both parties are allowed free speech!) because this is a very slippery slope. How do we stop, or how do we draw the line between too harmful and not too harmful? This is the danger in stopping any form of free speech - how do you quantify "harm"? This leads me to believe that free speech should be absolute, not circumstantial.

Some supporters of both sides (Israel and Hamas) disagree with me. I welcome that, you're allowed to disagree! And you're allowed to call me all kinds of names and be malicious!

Isn't that freedom nice?

Picture sources (respectively):

http://nextyearinalquds.blogspot.com

http://www.hannity.com/photo/plink/israel-protests/10912

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

JS Mill quote source:

"Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion" found at http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html