Freedom Of Speech In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

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. …show more content…
Society should have no restrictions for freedom of speech with exceptions of alienating a demographic race, religion, belief etc. or proposing violent confrontations, derogatory language or other means of offensive attacks to another individual or group of individuals. If any of these conditions are failed to be met, the government should intervene as opposed to his idea of society taking law in their hands for various reasons which equate to the benefit of society as a

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    Freedom of expression deals with the thought that the people of the community should make up their own mind and express their beliefs wherever they want including in public. Regarding this issue, the perspectives by Jeremy Waldron and Catherine MacKinnon that are put forth, are both effective explanations for their contemporary take. In this essay, I will argue that MacKinnon’s’ argument is the correct position, over Waldron’s. I believe it is the more powerful argument because of her exploration of the collision between equality and law, her references to real-world examples such as sexual and racial harassment, and the acknowledgment of the oppressed voices’ being overshadowed.…

    • 1367 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    This paper will endeavor to apply John Stuart Mill’s model of free speech to a situation brought to the forefront in an episode of TVO’s The Agenda, titled What is Wrong with Mark Steyn? The episode explores the issue of Maclean’s magazine refusing to publish a response to a series of articles by Steyn that were being viewed as hateful, as well as potentially harmful, to Muslim people in Canada. It will be argued that Mill would advocate for Maclean’s to publish a response to Steyn’s hateful speech because, if not challenged and clarified by opposing opinion, such speech could lead to direct harm of Canada’s Muslim population. However, while this paper will generally agree with Mill’s likely position in regards to the free speech issues raised…

    • 2080 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In “We Are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid and Dead,” Roger Rosenblatt illustrates the freedom of speech by expressing the limits of the public. People should express their freedom of speech in a way that isn’t offensive to others. Roger Rosenblatt speaks of freedom of speech used by a variety of people throughout the world. Each individual acts upon their own opinion of freedom of speech. In the article, Rosenblatt often mentions how he feels about each incident.…

    • 271 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What does the Declaration of Independence mean by the Freedom of speech? You probably use this right as an American citizen every day, but there is a difference between the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought. Jarome Lawrence’s book Inherit The Wind discusses how unpopular opinions are punishable by law and there is no room for science in a world of god. The unsettling thought that one is pressured to share the same opinions as others in fear of persecution on a personal or legal level.…

    • 1754 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Having Free Speech is the basic right that Americans have, it is the ability to speaks one’s mind and ideas. Theres are many benefits to having the ability to project ideas without censorship. Caleb Yong author of “Does Freedom of Speech Include Hate Speech?” argues that the liberal justice has a special protection against the restriction of speech and expression, he calls it “Free Speech Principle” where it includes its “sensitivity to the distinction between coverage and protection (Yong)” that the speech should be monitored. Hate speech is too broad to single out the negative effect that it can have in any group. The main concept of this article includes the four categories that hate speech can be set in.…

    • 1030 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Legal Policy Essay The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, as considered being one of the most fundamental protection of the American way of life in a democratic society. However, it is also very clear that there are certain forms of speech are prohibited. For example, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”; other limitations to freedom of speech include defamation, hate speech obscenity, and child pornography. Among all the situations with controversy, Constitution generally prohibits government’s regulation of speech, even when the speaker’s opinions are reprehensible to…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Stuart Mill, a philosopher during the mid-1800’s, is known as one of the most important western political philosophers in the past three hundred years. Many of his arguments on freedom can be seen intertwined with the current way we run societies around the world today. Being a self proclaimed Utilitarian, Mill focuses his arguments on making the collective reside with the most utility possible, with utility being defined by happiness. To achieve maximum utility, Mill presents three larger arguments,the harm principle, experiments of living, and freedom of speech. Before one can begin to agree or criticize Mill's arguments they must first delve into the core of Mill’s teachings, the harm principle.…

    • 1836 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill saw the problem with modern society as resulting from the power of both the tyranny of the majority but also the tyranny of public opinion. He believed that public opinion had grown too strong to the point where “At present individuals are lost in the crowd. In politics it is almost a triviality to say that public opinion now rules the world.” (On Liberty, chapter III). The “lost in the crowd” metaphor is a powerful one that illustrates Mill’s view.…

    • 996 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While both are strong about their stances their opinions differ. In John Stuart Mill’s second chapter of On Liberty he presents one overarching conclusion, that any censorship of expression of opinion must be completely prevented.…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Core Of Democracy

    • 459 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Core of Our Democracy Freedom of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly, and petition to government; these freedoms we wouldn’t have if not for the first amendment. The first amendment is the most superlative amendment because of the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.…

    • 459 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    In other words, if an individual rejects or contradicts the ideas expressed by the community, the community should be able to force that individual to submit to their opinions. It is at this point in which Rousseau and Mill differ. This act of forcing conformity would be seen as a form of tyranny to Mill who values the freedom of the individual. In order for society to progress, individual freedoms must always be expressed foremost. Indeed, Mill agrees that man should not behave in ways that would harm others but they should still be free to do as they wish.…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    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,…

    • 2454 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Outline On Hate Speech

    • 274 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Working Thesis: The protection of hate speech is essential to ensuring the continuation of free speech, as defined in the U.S. Constitution. I. Free speech is not an absolute right. Your right to free speech should be limited to use that do not impede on the rights of others. A) Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. argued that, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” This should be applied to free speech, as well.…

    • 274 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved 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.…

    • 812 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    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