JS Mill's arguments on the importance of free speech

JS Mill's arguments on the importance of free speech 

Mill was a strong believer of freedom of speech; he had four arguments as to why free speech is an important element of society. His first argument is on the subject of fallibility, ‘if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.’ Here JS Mill says that if we shun people’s opinions and keep them quiet and out of public view this leads to an assumption we cannot be proved wrong. This is a very manipulative and totalitarian mindset to have especially if a government lived by this example. It’s easy to see how this could lead to a negative outcome, or even take humanity longer to discover the truth. As for example, it took longer fir man to realise that the Earth was in fact round due to our own infallibility.

The Rude Boy himself

Mill’s second argument for free speech features partial truths. ‘Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and commonly does contain a portion of the truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on ay subject is rarely or never the whole truth is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.’ What Mill is trying to tell us in this argument is that regardless of whether an opinion is true or false, we can learn from looking at how a person came to that conclusion. This in turn deepens our understanding of the issues intended. For instance, if someone gave a sexist opinion on something it’s important that of ignoring what someone has said, we get to understand how they have grown to develop their view and educate them correctly on this matter to ensure that they don’t hold a negative opinion.

The third argument speaks about prejudice. ‘Even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth, unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of prejudice, with little comprehension of its rational grounds.’ JS Mill states that if an opinion is true, but it isn’t vigorously contested to be true in then people may often pre-judge this opinion and not bother to find for themselves why rational reason behind why this opinion is considered the truth. For example, if we say we are against child labour then we must work hard to stop child labour in all areas, otherwise people may just ignore the rational significance behind the idea of stopping child labour.

Fourthly, JS Mill tells us abut what is known as a dead dogma. ‘If we didn’t debate the opinion the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost or enforced, and deprived of it’s vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, infectious for good, but cumbering the ground and preventing growth of any real and heartfelt conviction from reason or personal experience.’ Mill says that if we didn’t debate certain ideas and opinion then soon these thoughts would become dead dogmas, as over time people would begin to lose the vitality if no-one continues to discuss them. For instance, if we stop discussing the events of WWII then perhaps this would lead to another case of anti semantic genocide.

However, some people have been found to criticise Mill’s views. On Mill’s argument of infallibility, isn’t it sometimes beneficial for government to censor some views. This is because it’s important for a government to assert it’s authority as they need to create order and establish some laws and norms to stop anomie. If a government were to debate issues there is a risk it would confusion over what is the right choice. Though if a government were to outlaw discussion and increase censorship then this may lead to the government developing negative opinions on racism or holocaust denial which in fact damage society. Issues with Mill’s second point on partial truth are as follows, surely some opinions are too offensive to be heard. This stems from the idea that we can find some truth in every opinion, but what if the opinion given is incredibly offensive, how are we to gain truth from this? For example, a Jewish man may find the opinion of holocaust denial very offensive, so how he be able to find some truth from this opinion? We could argue that must allow people to speak their opinion and if this opinion is false or absurd and offensive we can attempt to educate them on way their opinion is received in this manner. Censorship of opinions, whether true or false, would be negative as it’s part of our interests as progressive beings to have freedom of thought and expression.

When criticising the third argument we might think that some opinions are so obviously true that testing them is no longer necessary. Indeed it is true that some opinions are obviously true, ‘racism is a bad’, but even so, just because an opinion doesn’t mean we shouldn't vigorously contest this truth. There’s is no extensive damage being done to our society by testing these truths, if anything it would benefit our society, especially if new generations of people continuously contested against thing such as racism.

The final criticism says, are some things so obvious that no debate is needed to keep the idea alive? In response to this we can argue that if we didn’t discuss obvious opinions perhaps they could lead to a dead dogma, also it’s important that people understand why things are true even if they appear obvious so people gain and develop a deeper understanding. From there they can teach other generations about what is considered true and false. What harm can it bring to discuss these obvious issues? None at all, so it’s it makes no sense to criticse Mill on this matter.

JS Mill argues that opinions lose their immunity and may be censored when the circumstances are fit. For example, when they constitute in their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. This may be represented in the case of Salman Rushdie, who many believe should be punished for writing the ‘Satanic Verses’. There can be causes where expression of our opinion causes harm directly, by attacking someone’s reputation for example. Mill believes there must be direct harm between the expression and the action. If there is not then society should only seek to prevent the harmful action, this is where Mill's harm principle steps in. This leads us onto censorship issues in modern society such as pornography. Mill believes that expressing our own opinions is an expression of individuality, one of Mill’s higher pleasures. So should pornography be censored? Well, to work this out we have to ask ourselves questions, does it cause physical harm? Yes, in some cases pornography can cause physical harm to those involved with things such as S and M as well as things such as sexually transmitted diseases. Does it cause general harm to women? Harm is caused to women as it merely objectifies them as sexual objects. After looking at the harm pornography causes perhaps we should censor it to some degree, we shouldn’t market it publicly as it may confuse or offend people, but people should be allowed to view it in their own home. However, this raises the issue of the tyranny of the majority. Surely in a democracy or free society that Mill advertises we should allow the minority a chance to become the majority?

Perhaps censorship is important from a utilitarian mindset as, censoring pornography may be part of the majorities vote, which would create the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This is where conflict arises between individual freedom and social utility, as these two ideals don’t come to the same conclusion. People in favour of individual freedom would say that there is no place for censorship, as freedom of speech leads is essential to a human being. So in this situation we must try to compromise. In the given example of pornography we would say that pornography should be kept in people’s homes. This way it keeps the majority happy as to a certain extent pornography is censored, yet it would maintain some individual freedom because people could make their own choices in their own home if they want to view it.

Though censorship may be beneficial for the public interest as it creates the principle of utility, it can often lead to totalitarian ideals and fail to educate people on important issues, such as racism, genocide and sexism. Its been shown in the past that censorship fails to ensure freedom, take the burning of books. Perhaps censorship is not needed as discovering the truth for yourself is more important than being told what is true. Maybe genuine progress can only be achieved through free exchange of ideas, as they strengthen up the way we think about the world and lead to innovation. However, this can only be managed with a certain amount of restriction within society as we should use the harm principle to negate whether something should be censored.  Mill's four arguments for freedom of speech say that there is no place for mass censorship, as it stops us from educating people, learning from others points of view, sharpening our thinking and gaining new innovations.