Censorship In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty Mills

Censorship amounts prohibition of expression of someone’s ideas, thoughts which may be detrimental and prejudicial to a particular class of people. The book Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, revolves around the idea of censorship as a bane to the society and culture. The book touches on various consequences of censorship like social isolation and infringement of thoughts. Bradbury has given an accurate representation of the society leading to an end as censorship proceeds to prohibit literature. Literature is power and censorship is suppressing it. Suppressing

On the other hand, some people argue that book censorship is a violation of their constitutional right to freedom of speech, and the right to self expression. One article puts its effects this way, “Permitting restraints on literature sets the stage for attacks on all expression that is artistically or politically controversial or that portray unpleasant realities of life.” This,

“A word to the unwise. Torch every book. Char every page. Burn every word to ash. Ideas are incombustible. And therein lies your real fear.” Ellen Hopkins. The government in this society is burning all of the knowledge. The books may be burnt but ideas and your imagination are unretrievable, that can be passed down through generations. The government has the real fear. Censorship is bad and takes away from your imagination and creativity.

Let’s create an alternative world, one without liberty, and popular social customs must be followed. If one deviates from these norms, society will ostracize the person until that person conforms to the popular beliefs and values. John Stuart Mill starts off with an argument questioning to what extent “the nature and limits of the power which can legitimately [exercise] by society over the individual” (Mill, n.d., p. Chapter 1). So what if, the nature and limits of power of society know no bounds? This will lead us to the alternative world where liberty and conformity will be social norms. So then Mill goes on and argues that “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” (Mill, n.d., p. Chapter 2). Mill is proposing new ideas in which there are limits and justification of using that power to silencing the individual but overall believe in the freedom of expression. John Stuart Mill is correct that mankind should not be justifiable in using their power to silence the individual and frankly, they have no right to, if they do silence the individual, they silence development of humanity. This is due to the harm principle, silencing of ideas, individuality, and limits of authority.

“Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others; their fear is only their inability to face what is real.” While adults are capable of making rationalized decisions based on extreme conditions, children and other vulnerable groups are unable to, and therefore rely on a more palatable means of communication. Consequently, it is best to use censorship in a corresponding manner. Censorship is the act of suppressing ideas which may be considered objectionable, harmful, insensitive, etc. All around the globe, whether it be school systems, government, religious organizations, or even media outlets, people have debated against the practice of censorship and the effects of such an imposition.

In chapter two of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill stresses the importance of free speech. In the chapter, Mill lays out several arguments for why it is always beneficial for people of the minority opinion to voice their opinions. He also believes that free speech is justified because humans can never know if the majority opinion is truly correct. It is clear that Mill’s writing on free speech is an application of Socratic wisdom mainly because of his emphasis on debate, and his acknowledgement of the limitation of human knowledge. I personally believe that Mill took freedom of speech too far in On Liberty, and will explain my claim in light of the events that occurred in Charlottesville last summer.

The subject of censorship is a very controversial one, especially the banning of books. Many people believe they must protect themselves and others from the "evils" of many classic books and works of art because they can be deemed "indecent" in one way or another. Many believe that this is absurd and censorship in its current form is a violation of our First Amendment right to free speech. Personally, I align myself with the latter, however I do feel there are occasions where censorship is justifiable.

Mill bases his argument against censorship on two premises. The first is that human beings are fallible, and we can never be entirely sure we have everything right. The second premise is that humans are corrigible – capable of being corrected. His argument is that censorship prevents humans from correcting errors. If a censored opinion is true, we lose the ability to learn the truth, and vice versa. He claims that free discussion is the best way of correcting our errors, which is most beneficial for us. However, if one opinion is silenced, no one benefits because if the dissenting ideas are better, the world has been done a disservice by those ideas being silenced, for no one to hear or discuss. Thus, there is little opportunity to think critically

Inhibition of one's liberty, such as their liberty of conscience (i.e. freedom of speech), is unjust by Millian principles, unless the person's use of deliberation is to voice hate speech. So what is hate speech? Hate speech is directed towards a member of a group, or the group as a whole, that vilifies on the basis of the subject's beliefs. In comparison to discriminatory speech, hate speech does not invoke mere offense, but in most cases is traumatic, and severely impair one’s deliberative capacities, or their mental faculties (judgment, moral preference, intuition, etc…). Liberties have been established to protect our deliberative abilities, as these are conducive to achieving happiness, which to Mill is the individual's primary goal. So why should we regulate hate speech? Although it is important to allow people's freedom of expression, as this is conducive to promoting one's individuality, hate speech can stigmatize one's character, and for this reason hate speech is not always morally, or legally permissible. To better understand hate speech's importance, I will describe Mill's argument in favor of prohibiting hate speech, following this I will object to Mill's rejection of hate speech, finally, I will show why hate speech should be regulated, and why allowing it is dangerous to humans, and society as a whole. Freedom of expression is imperative for improving one’s character, but not all forms of opinions', such as hate speech, should have full freedom to be

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill was a strong believer of freedom of speech. He identifies the Harm principle to protect the freedom of thought and expression. He argues that people should not be silenced for expressing their opinion or how they feel based on their beliefs. He declares four vaguely arguments and makes several examples as to why freedom of speech is a very important aspect to society. In this paper, I argue that Mill is correct in declaring that we have the right to express our opinions as long as it does not bring harm to others. First, I will define how Mill uses the harm principle to declare his argument and the four distinct reasons for freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion. Secondly, I will declare my viewpoint based on why I agree with the harm principle as well as Mill’s argument following that we have a right to freedom of expression.

Within Canada, free speech was not included in the “Canadian Bill Of Rights” until later in the 20th century (Government Of Canada); it wasn’t fully acknowledged then and this relates to the great ideas of John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty, Mill explicitly states the importance of the freedom of speech, thought and lastly to hold an opinion. Mill also goes further to discuss the limitations of actions that may emerge from these opinions. Moreover, with these major points, he says that people should not coerce someone’s opinion either through their government or on their own (Mill 14). Mill has given some important points that relate to real life situations improve society and cultivate individuality of people. These points include

Men and women in the United States of America find censorship helpful when it protects their children from harmful things but they are against censorship when it is used out of context. Parents seem to appreciate censorship more when it shelters children from learning indecent things in the world that could cause danger to themselves or the others around them (in text citation). But censorship is not always good like when it is used in school’s or in books; but censorship can be helpful when it is used on the internet, social media, or in music. For instance censorship is favorable when it stops the epidemic of racism but when censorship stops an individual from saying what that individual wants censorship is not liked by many people in the United States of America ( in text citation).

Censorship has been widely used throughout the United States since the late 1700s’ and is still used to this day. As technology emerges exponentially the use of censorship becomes more greatly enforced throughout society. Which results in mixed opinions with the way censorship are used. Some may think that censorship is a positive way to restrict inappropriate material, but, on the other hand, they may believe that the use of censorship conflicts with their rights to freedom of speech. The effectiveness of censorship is perceived as a double edged sword, where it can be seen as either positive or negative due to the ways in which it is used.

Censorship is a broad topic that can lead to chaos and misunderstanding if not clearly conveyed for what it is. For example, rock music, the first major threat to traditional thinking caused a divide between generations because of how different and explicit it became in the mid-1900s. It’s no surprise there were people ready to combat rock music. However, what is surprising is the fact that so much happened with so little change in the music around us. Censorship if anything only helped intensify the differences between society.

I will be using a number of these sources to argue the fact that censorship could’ve been a way to control popular opinion as well as create a stable basis for transitioning into a free market of ideas...of the