This essay will aim to critically access John Stuart Mill’s arguments for freedom of expression from truth. Mill’s work, On Liberty, aims to define the “struggle between Liberty and Authority.” The relationship between freedom of expression and truth is complicated, and Mill presents several arguments that seek to unravel how the two interact.
In the second chapter of On Liberty, Mill makes the assumption that freedom of expression is no longer a necessary tool in protecting citizens from the state. “Let us suppose,” he says “…that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion…”. Instead, he is worried about the freedom to express unpopular views. It is here where he begins to explore the relationship between free expression and truth.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Critically Assess Mill’s Argument For Freedom Of Expression From Truth".
First, we should explore truth. The truth is different from a belief in that the truth requires information, or knowledge. Knowledge is what makes a truth, a truth. Without it, a belief is reduced to superstition or dogma. However, it is not simply the acquisition of a truth through knowledge that Mill was concerned with, he also valued the way that truth was held. That is he wanted an argument, or the presentation of truth, to be laid out in a rational manner. Ideally, an individual would present their opinions and the grounds, or knowledge, they have for holding those opinions in a rational light. Additionally, he believed it imperative that the individual would be willing to change his or her mind with the presentation of new arguments and evidence contrary to their beliefs. Therefore, truth is a belief, backed up by knowledge, that is open to interpretation and change.
Mill’s view of freedom of expression hinges on this ability for the truth to change. He writes, “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary 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.” Therefore, silencing an opinion that is true deprives those who disagree with the opportunity to change their mind. Moreover, since a truth is open to change, we never know when a belief is true or false. The whole truth is never known. Silencing any opinion, therefore, is dangerous because there is always the chance that the opinion might be true. If an opinion is false and it is silenced, it deprives humanity as a whole of the chance to better understand the opposite side, or the truth. He asserts that to deprive people the chance to freely discuss the belief they will not appreciate the full meaning of it.
This argument for freedom of expression from truth is connected to the argument Mill makes in the first chapter of On Liberty, that of preventing harm. In this chapter, Mill examines the ways in which an individual might prevent harm, and then goes on to day “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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant . . . over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Mill’s argument states that an individual’s free will should not be infringed unless they are harming another. Therefore, freedom of expression is beneficial because to stifle a truth would be harmful to society. However, it then must be examined what kinds of speech, if any would cause harm.
To determine what kind of speech causes harm, Mill uses an example of corn dealers. Corn dealers (or contemporary pharmaceutical companies) set the prices for their goods. If they set their prices too high, Mill says it is safe to say they are starving (or harming) the population through the printed word, in the editorial section of a newspaper for instance. However it is not acceptable to express the same view to an angry mob that has gathered outside the corn dealers home. The difference is that the second may ultimately lead to the corn dealer being harmed. It is an expression, Mill writes, “such as to constitute…a positive instigation to some mischievous act”. Mill differentiates between legitimate and illegitimate harm. Legitimate harm, in this instance, would be any kind of financial or reputation damage to the corn dealer’s business that occurred because of the written opinion. Illegitimate harm would be physical harm would be physical damage to the corn dealer or his property.
A contemporary example of Mill’s argument in practice would be the OCCUPY movements across the United States. It can be argued that the police force in several cities took actions that were contrary to Mill’s arguments when they broke up the demonstrations. This is a similar situation to Mill’s corn dealer example, where it is unclear who is being harmed the most – the public for being inconvenienced by the protesters, or the protesters themselves for having their freedom of expression stifled.
In conclusion, in his work On Liberty John Stuart Mill argued that freedom of expression hinges on truth, and to deny society the chance to argue for or against that truth is harmful. Without the ability to present an argument, based on knowledge, beliefs are simply reduced to superstition. Mill thought that freedom of expression and an individual’s liberty should not be infringed unless they were directly causing harm. It is this juxtaposition between expression and harm that we are still battling with today, over 150 years on from the publication of On Liberty.
- MILL, J. S.,(1860, 2001). On Liberty. Batoche Books Limited. Print Edition.
