Freedom Of Speech And Freedom Of Speech By John Stuart Mill

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,

Introduction. The new boundaries and opportunities in the seventeenth century grew and challenged an idea of religious liberty. The lifestyle of the first colonists in the New England was heavily influenced by religion and church. Settlers considered that success of social life depends on the obedience to God’s will. The governor John Winthrop maintained and developed this idea. With a help of his Speech to the Massachusetts General Court in 1645, he summed up and explained an important idea of liberty. Winthrop did not only define a blessed way for a better life of the community but also clarified the role of citizens through the analogy of women’s position in the society. His concept of natural and moral liberty turned up to be suitable and clear for the settlers. With a help of well-built speech, Winthrop emphasized and explained correlation among society, authority, and God in the New World.

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:

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

The Continental Congress which consists of men who have been chosen by individuals within the 13 colonies gathered and discussed their opposition of the British government and have decided to create and issue a document. That document is titled The Declaration of Independence and was written and released July 4, 1766 in Philadelphia which contained 56 signatures from each of the colonies. It has also been brought to our attention that a man by the name of Thomas Paine who is deeply influenced by the Enlightenment has questioned the lawfulness of the British monarchy and has published a 48 page radical pamphlet named Common Sense which has convinced many colonists that declaring independence from Britain is the right and only choice. He is a believer of a new form of government where the people pick a representative based on consent, known as a republic.

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.

Thomas Paine, a revolutionary, intellectual, and supporter of American independence from England published a book titled, “Rights of Man” which deals with the government shielding the natural rights of its people. Initially, the book captures the diverse aspect of this nation, but it fails to reveal the struggles that arise to preserve and adapt to such a society. Paine expresses his optimism towards the supposed perfection of American society, as one “made up...of people from different nations,” with certain expectations. Additionally, the time gap between “Rights of Man” and modern America cannot be neglected. Paine wrote during an era in which “constructing a government on the principles of society and the rights of man” was the essential objective of the country. However, modern-day America experiences opposite ideals and Paine’s theory no longer remains true because of the educational gap between the rich and poor, terrorism, and racial profiling.

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.

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.

Within On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, the notion of individuality and one 's abilities to make choices for himself contradicts the notion of evolution within Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience. Mill’s beliefs derive from social interaction and experience in which the individual can decide for himself what is right versus what is wrong and can act upon what he believes to be the best option. Whereas, Wilson’s views coincide with the idea that individuals generate decisions based off of historically discovered findings and ideas, and how people have evolved based off of others outcomes. Choices people make, in Mill’s view, are based on concepts like perception and judgment, however, Wilson’s outlook established from the evolution of situations, where the person then makes a choice in order to initiate the best-known outcome.

Mill’s belief promotes that each individual’s opinion is important and therefore should be listened to by the government. The government would not be able to turn a blind eye to a minority; this is one of many influences on classical liberalism. In classical liberalism the government has limited say in the economy and ensures that everyone has the right to his or her freedom of opinion. An

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

“If all mankind minus one were of one 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, 2002, pg.14) John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher of the 19th century, and said to be one of the most influential thinkers in the areas regarding social theory, political theory, and political economy had strong views regarding free speech. In his following quote, he states that if all mankind had an opinion or an action, and another individual had a different opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing that one individual just like that one individual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Mill’s

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 criticism of a majority opinion is the value of free speech, in order to have a valid opinion you must accept and listen to the criticism of that opinion John Stuart Mill argues that anyone should be able to exercise their freedom of speech as long as it does not negatively affect or harm others. To specify, Mill states that there is no justification in silencing someone’s opinion, no matter if this opinion is right or wrong, or even popular or unpopular. The ability to criticize an opinion is a freedom that we deserve to have, John Stuart Mill goes into