Free Speech In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

Many people believe The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, founded by Pierre Elliott Trudeau benefited and became the base for our country’s foundation. It is believed by many, that the Charter created individual rights and freedom. However, while all this may be true, I will argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms negatively impacted Canada, and that Canadians are still feeling these effects today. I will also examine the Charter did more harm to Canadians than good. The Charter Rights and Freedoms affected the operation of trials along with judiciary powers, multiculturalism and provincial rights, which undermined Canadas intended democracy and de-centralized government.

On contrary, Mill claims that when we as society censor false opinions it has the same harmful impact as when we censor a right opinion. This claim is supported through the compact of “Danger of Dead dogma” which suggests if we are not given an open forum eventually the truth will die sooner or later. It is highly important for individuals not to solely have the knowledge about why something is stated as correct but likewise to know why it known as wrong. The truth needs to be understood through all the different perspectives that it is associated with it which is ultimately the reasoning behind why we preserve something as either right or wrong. This process is highly essential for us as society to believe in the truth as it is still “live”.

The United States of America was created by people who were not afraid to stand up for what they believed in. Together they fought, died, and built a new nation of freedom for all. However, the American Revolution would not have gained such widespread support without one man who believed in the freedom of speech. Thomas Paine risked his life to fight the British's censorship of the colonists and encouraged the people to fight back against the King's opposition. Paine fought for his ideals by illegally printing his book Common Sense, giving the people morale through The American Crisis, and becoming involved in the French Revolution through Rights of Man.

1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:

In John Stuart Mill’s second chapter in On Liberty, he discusses the liberty of thought and discussion, and more importantly, describes the importance of dissenting opinion. Mill describes that the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race.” (Mill 614). He argues, “to refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty.” (Mill 615). It is important to notice the distinction between the certainty of the public and absolute certainty. Mill absolutely rejects the idea that truths can be accepted without hearing dissenting opinion. As he says,

own. Freedom of speech was important and America was based on protests. The most famous

The existence of “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” (Mill 4) also constrains an individual’s personal liberty. In On Liberty, Mill wrote that “the mass do not now take their opinions from “the mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church or State, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves” (63). Mill believed that the majority in the society tends to impose their own ideas and practices onto other people. This will eventually cause the minority opinion to be completely omitted and silenced. Moreover, the majority is not guaranteed to be correct, and could not be falsified as result of no open discussion or debate. This lack of discussion could only fetter and hinder the development and the formation of character. Mill wrote “However unwilling a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living” (34). In a society where dead dogmas are prevalent, no individuals can obtain complete freedom. This is because no one will have the courage to challenge and circulate new and original ideas that can help them achieve liberty. The members of the society will live in a world where no one will construct new ideas, and no one will discover and spread the ultimate truths. Instead, the people will cling

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

A primary objective of identifying common ground between Nietzsche and Mill’s ideas of freedom is to define freedom adequately so that it can be used as a basis for comparison. Each theorist’s opinion on what freedom is, however, appears to be fairly distinct. Mill might describe freedom as the absence of constraints to original, individual thought, whereas Nietzsche conceptualizes freedom as continual self-overcoming to evolve a more actualized self. Freedom for Nietzsche is overcoming wrong beliefs and creating one’s own values, whereas for Mill, freedom is having the leeway to discover one’s own values. In effect, Mill focuses on the structural protections or necessities that allow creativity to flourish, and Nietzsche wants to deconstruct those structures that impede that flourishing. Mill emphasizes optimizing the political and social realms, which in theory then provide a safe haven for Nietzsche’s intrapsychic or spiritual struggle. Thus, Mill 's definition could be described as political whereas Nietzsche 's could be understood as transformational. Both strive toward achieving the highest level of individual potential, and both want to support discovery of one’s most individualized beliefs. Given that each theorist has such distinct views on the definition itself, however, one needs to extrapolate the essence of what each would consider freedom to be. So for the purposes of describing how Mill and Nietzsche intersect, this approximation of a

Mill wastes no time in articulating the central thesis of On Liberty; he states, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (69). Mill, then, does not make the individual more important than society, but he separates the individual from society and articulates a realm of existence in which society, or the community, should have no power over the individual. Mill states, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection…His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (68). Society, therefore, has no right to intervene in the private life of any person, unless they act in such a way that prevents others from enjoying their own rights.

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.

The book starts off by discussing the fact that liberty is important to protect individuals against political tyranny of overzealous rulers. Citizens of the society were beginning to realize that in order for them to achieve liberty the government would have to step in, and act as a instrument of the peoples will. Whatever the majority chose in a society was what the government would have to go with as its main purpose should be to serve the best interest of the citizens. Mill recognizes this new so-called victory of the people is nothing they assume its like to be, its in fact just a way for a new type of tyranny; the type of prevailing opinion. This type of tyranny is far worse and more evil as it silences the voice of the minority, and lets the majority rule. The minority of a society should be able to state their opinion even if it may be wrong, right, or even part of the truth. According to Mill, everyone’s contribution is extremely important in a community. Mill states that society should not impose its values on anyone because even though the majority choses one path, it doesn’t mean that they are right because human opinion is error-prone and thus we should listen and not be so judgmental on the opinions of those who don’t agree with majority. The majority group if people who choose one path may not always realize that they might be making a error in judgment which those in minority can be able to see. Mills

Additionally, Mill also advocates for free speech on the grounds of an individuals safety, more in depth, the physical and emotional safety of a citizen. “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will,is to prevent harm to others”( Mill,8) Here, it is obvious that Mill advocates free speech as long as it doesn't hamper another being. Furthermore, Mill also justifies his belief in free speech on the grounds of ones mental well being stating “necessity to the mental well being of mankind of freedom of opinion.( Mill,43) It is apparent that Mill asserts freedom of speech is acknowledged on the basis of an individuals safety, both physical and mental.

Firstly, Mill believes that individual liberty is instrumental in the attainment of truth. No one can claim an infallibility of knowledge or a definite truth. Falsehoods are often sprinkled with specks of truth; and truth may exists as half-truths held by different people, and it is only through controversy that the truth in the parts can be unified into a larger canvas of the ultimate truth. If one's actions were to be censored completely, society would lose those specks of truth amongst the falsehoods, which would be disadvantageous to society.