John Stuart Mill Free Speech Analysis

Great Essays
Mill’s’ essay also argues that freedom of speech and diversifying opinions act as a fuel that drives social progress. Mill states, “... the only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty, since by it there are as many possible independent centres of improvement as there are individuals” (Mill 65). One can gather that Mill believes that liberty is necessary for improvement and the more liberty present in individual members of society the more persons influencing change. This is an important message for our society to receive and is in accordance with our liberal democratic society. It demonstrates the importance of individuals and how their freedoms positively contribute to society because, as Mill bluntly states, without individuality …show more content…
Mill contends that opinions should not be expressed if this is done to cause mischief and that they are permissible to be expressed if they do not. He argues that it is justifiable that a man expresses a negative opinion towards the ownership of private property or states that merchants are the reason for poverty (Mill 52). Although controversial in nature, such opinions are not harming anyone and for this reason, should have the ability to circulate. However, the opinion is only justifiable in certain instances where the context of the situation affirms it is not inflicting harm on another individual or a group (Mill 16). To illustrate this point, Mill refers to a scenario in which the same opinion is expressed by a group of people which could lead to dangerous circumstances (e.g. mob outside of corn-dealers house). This opinion incites rage in them and evidently they might act violently to others (e.g. towards the corn dealer) (Mill 52). In these situations, is important to recognize that it is not the entirety of the opinion that one must pay attention to, but the context in which the opinion is shared. For the benefit of all Mill’s writes, “the liberty of the individual must thus far be limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, …show more content…
Mill’s work goes into depth on how much liberty should be granted to the individual and to what extent the government should be able to intervene with these liberties for the betterment of society. I agree with Mill on what the basic tenets for his argument on freedom of speech are (i.e. truth, utility, social progress). I also accept that the justification of freedom of speech as that which can bring about such things as truth and social progress. He provides a clear explanation for society as to why it is important to allow others to state their opinions and not infringe upon the free speech of others. It seems clear that acting in accordance to this precept will lead to the overall betterment of society. As previously stated, I believe that modeling a similar stance to Mill on freedom of speech has served to benefit our modern liberal democratic society. This is shown through our ability to freely discuss our opinion within reasonable limits, listen and learn from opinions that differ from our own, and our being free from the rules of a particular religion and being able to safely practice (or not to practice) any religion of our choosing. The ability for all persons to share their opinions and discuss them with others is the reason for our societal progression technologically and in the area of tolerance. I believe that it was

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    Freedom is a foundation that guides the framework of everyday society. It is a principle that is responsible for the creation of law, government, institutions, behavior and so forth. As Americans, we have found ourselves fortunate enough to be guided by a democratic government that serves to protect the freedoms of the individuals who proudly chant the motto, “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave”. Yet, often people fail to truly understand what freedom means. In order to do so, it is critical to examine historical political writings on freedom, specifically the teachings of Rousseau and Mill. The specific thoughts of Rousseau and Mill on freedom, the significance of social contracts, individual versus social freedom, and government’s role…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In each of these examples, Mill’s approach was recognizably applied in order to exemplify how the concept of utility can often be manipulated in certain cases to identify a morally wrong action as being morally right, exhibiting a false allegation on Mill’s part. Challenging his claim; just because an action results in happiness and pleasure for the greater number of people does not justify the moral value of that action. Both agents in the two cases knew that the outcome of their action would result in more people being saved, but the manner in which they saved those five people was morally wrong. Just because the results of an action are to be considered “good” does not intend that the action itself is also good. Relying on how an act will play out and how it will effect others as a means of identifying its moral worth is an unreasonable approach. It is out of the power of Mill’s ethical claim to capture whether or not the consequences of certain actions are to be acknowledged as good or bad. Solely centralizing on the power of an action’s outcomes is merely not enough to classify the act as just or unjust. Rather, by recognizing the importance of an action’s principle, or reason to determine its true moral worth; and therefore neglecting the ethics behind John Stuart Mill. Work…

    • 1398 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One who would object would be John Locke. In Locke’s A Second Treatise of Government he argues that the citizens within a society are under the understanding that the opinion of the majority is the way the society shall be governed. He argues that for society to be governed properly the citizens must give up their natural freedom and place their trust within the society. There are two main areas of freedom that must be given up for society to work. First the citizens must give themselves up to the law of the society, they must allow restrictions and limits to be placed upon them for the society to run effectively. Secondly the citizens must put themselves under the protection of the society and trust that they will be defended and taken care of. When this trust is given to the society and the government then they can effectively protect and ensure “the peace, safety, and public good of the people. This is contrary to what Mill would argue as he does not believe citizens should submit themselves to society and give away their rights. He believes that as an individual citizen you should fight for your opinion and never give into society. Doing so would be negative for…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If individuals are not allowed to do so, the overall well-being of society declines which is not the goal of a utilitarian’s society. In a utilitarian state, the greatest amount of good is sought after for the greatest number of people. To justify his point, Mill explains three situations where speech is censored and discusses the ramifications. The first situation is the censorship of the truth. Mill states that if the truth is censored, society will continue living in falsehood and therefore it cannot progress. He believes that humans are rational and therefore must be interested in the truth. If truthful opinions and ideas were censored, new discoveries cannot be established despite those discoveries potentially being world changing. I agree that censoring ideas is harmful to society because the ideas could be true. For example, if the truth that the earth is round was censored, explorers would not have gone out and discovered more land. They would have continued to believe that the world is flat and so if they were to travel too far they would fall off the edge of the earth and die. The second situation is the censorship of falsehoods. Mill argues that censoring false speech weakens society because society is not being challenged to prove why the speech is false. He also believes that if society does not tackle these falsehoods, they will still exist in society but…

    • 1434 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The role of free speech in a Jeffersonian democracy was used to create the ability to speak your mind about others and situations and will not be persecuted by them.…

    • 550 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Explain one of the four reasons Mill gives for why we should have complete freedom of speech. Evaluate the reason you gave – is Mill right? Use examples.…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill explores the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech and formulates a theory that the intervention of government would result in degeneration of freedom of speech for citizens. However, in the situation in the episode of ‘The Agenda’, his theory gets challenged due to its ineffectiveness. The episode tackles a continuing political issue of freedom of speech and the limitations following it. The matter begins with a particular…

    • 1908 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Stuart Mills Nuisance

    • 1931 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Mills first goes in depth in his first chapter by providing a brief overview of the meaning of liberty. He first presents his basic argument in favor of “liberty”. Liberty according to mills has to deal with free-will and determinism that precedes over most in a society. Mills argues that liberty for individuals is “correct” as long as those liberties do not harm or impose on anybody else. In Chapter 2, Mill turns to the issue of imposition, Mills notes that imposition can be brought on by either the government or by the people in that society. However, mills questions, if it should be allowed to coerce or limit someone else's expression of opinion. Mill categorically says that some of these activities are unlawful. Mills argues that even if only one person held a specific opinion, society would not be warranted in silencing him. Disregarding these opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it takes away from "the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation." Mills also says that without “silenced opinions” those who disagree wouldn’t exist.Chapter 3 , After examining the previous chapter and whether people should be allowed to hold and, express unpopular beliefs. In this chapter, Mills focuses on the new question of whether people should be allowed to act out their opinions and beliefs, without facing legal intervention or negative social stigma.…

    • 1931 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Tyranny of the majority is also a topic discussed throughout class thus far. In the tyranny of the majority, the government serves the people and majority rules. By having a majority rules system, the majority is prevented from being a dictator. Mill believes that you can never be sure you are preventing bad things from happening as you can never be sure that something will go wrong. He believes that the majority will not take away the rights of every one else if they are enlightened. According to Mill, enlightenment is the is the ability to see all sides of the issue. Also enlightenment entails the ability to see all choices, and ways of living. Mill believes that the minority needs to be enlightened so that the majority does not take away…

    • 410 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However, once you begin to look deeper into Locke’s political philosophy you can see that he would not be as supportive as Mill on the issue of free speech. Locke considers the consent of the majority to be equivalent to the individual’s consent (Locke, Sec. 140). If the majority can consent to laws that encroach on your estate, then the majority is also able to consent to laws that encroach on liberty. Since Locke himself lumped the right to life, liberty, and estate all together as basic property rights (Locke, Sec. 6).…

    • 670 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    way in which it should be expressed so as not infringe on the liberty of the minority groups. Moreover, true as it may be that most constitutions defend the freedom of speech, it is also true that these constitutions place limits on how freely one can express themselves because of the harm and offense that unlimited speech can cause. For example, the first amendment of the USA’s constitution protects freedom of speech and yet there exist laws regarding libel, obscenity, national security, access to government information, and regulation of electronic mass communications. John Stuart Mill, despite being one of the greatest defenders of free speech suggested that “a struggle is always in conflict with the demands of the authority and liberty,”…

    • 357 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This essay will compare and contrast two highly revered political philosophers, Freidrich Hayek and John Stuart Mill. Hayek and Mill are widely known for their work on the philosophy of liberty. It is important to compare and contrast these thinkers because of the impact they still have on society today. Hayek is a classic negative liberty thinker, basing his views on the importance of the lack of outside interference on a man pursuing his own will. Mill, however, is a positive liberty thinker, basing his opinions on a man being his own master and attaining his highest possible self. One can see differences in their views based on the fact they hold opposing methods of thought, however, they still hold some similar views. It will be proven…

    • 2226 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    English philosopher, political economist, and liberal John Stuart Mill published one of his most famous works in 1859: On Liberty. Mill explores the innate and given liberties of people, analyzing what is the extent in which society or government has valid reasons to exercise power over its people. He argues that the individual should not be under the jurisdiction of society or government if their actions are not harming anyone but themselves. The only time society or government should involve themselves and exert power over citizens is if the actions of the individual are harming others within the society. To contextualize this idea, it is important to look into modern day examples of this idea. For example, alcohol, although harmful to the…

    • 812 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mills argues, “[i]f 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.” His justification of this is the belief that the loss of diversity in thought amongst society would deprive them of enrichment in knowledge. Mill believes freedom of speech should only be limited when harming others. In his famous corn dealer example (2002, pp. 46-47) he explains that individuals should be permitted to say as they wish without any restrictions as long as they do not harm others however, taking offence is understandable. Mill makes several assumptions regarding the ability of society to rationally understand the difference of harmful and offensive. There is a grey area when it comes to differentiating what is considered to be practising one’s freedom of speech or being offensive to those around them. Since there is no concrete definition on what can be considered to be ‘freedom of speech’, John Stuart Mill, author of On Liberty focuses on prohibiting the government from limiting freedom of speech and allowing citizens to have no limitations on their speech under the exception of harming others.…

    • 1624 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill Vs Rousseau Analysis

    • 1418 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Having stated that, we must acknowledge here that Mill’s theory on liberty is beginning to form more of an individualistic view of society where it aims at enlightening the individual rather than society whole. In addition to that, note that Mill’s view here contradicts significantly to that of Rousseau’s communitarian one, which we will analyse in the…

    • 1418 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays