The topic of this essay revolves around the issue concerning the interests of states versus the narrative of the freedom of speech; an interesting read within the context of our technologically-developing modern times. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that “[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.” Below, let us examine Mill’s justification, limitations to the right of free speech he eloquently presents, and lastly, my own perspective on the matter.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association writes, “the right to express yourself and form your own opinions is an essential feature of a democracy.” (“Freedom of Expression – Canadian Civil Liberties Association”, 2019) Nearly 150 years after an English philosopher by the name of John Stuart Mill wrote & published his book titled On Liberty in 1859, the Canadian standard of maintaining free speech is still a relevant topic of discussion. Why is free speech so significant and influential from Mill’s time period and likely perhaps before then, to our modern world today? Mill writes that the older definition of liberty was to aid in “protection against the tyranny of the political rulers.” (J. S. Mill, p. 1) From this explanation, it can be inferred that the freedom of speech is crucial in upkeeping the balance of power between those who rule in a given state and those who are ruled. It is essentially, as Mill states, a form of security. As we take the necessary measures to be secure in other aspects of our lives, the freedom of speech is just as meaningful to be preserved so that we as the citizens of the state may be as autonomous as our minds allow in the context of reaching unprecedented innovations under a democracy. In this essay, I will be arguing that Mill’s position on free speech was a sound argument for its time period; however, it can be further elaborated on by using the context of how a modern Canadian society is arranged to make it truly applicable. Topics of discussion in the paragraphs below proving my thesis include Mill’s argument with respect to free speech, evaluation of his viewpoints & my main proofs supporting why I believe his logic concerning free speech is outdated, as well as how I feel that it should be altered in the interest of reflecting the modern context of how a Canadian society’s freedom of speech is structured in comparison to roughly one and a half centuries ago, at the time of On Liberty’s publication.
Mill’s arguments concerning free speech are centred upon his notion that if the freedom of speech and/or someone’s ideas are silenced, this results in an exclusively negative impact for both the individual and the state. This is illustrated through his analysis of components of progression in a society, citing liberty and individuality as two major foundations from which progress is built. (Mill, 58 & 59) From further analysis, we can suppose that the latter of the two is applicable to both individuality and, by negative inference, conformity. Since the aim of the laws of a state are generally in the interest of increasing conformity, and the aim of the progressive principle Mill describes (59) is to increase individual liberty, the two must work in tandem in the best interest of the society’s progression. As is portrayed by the above two major progression foundations he cites, Mill expresses that an unbalance between the state and the individual would not work in either’s favour. Although Mill’s arguments on free speech are not expressed chronologically as they are in the text, this is done so with the intention of narrowing his thought process stemming down from his most general arguments to how he believes his arguments can be applied. The next paragraph discusses his further clarifications on when one’s freedom of speech should be restricted.
Mill proposes limitations to free speech in the form of using what he coined as the harm principle, which states that actions are only capable of being punished by the state and others in a society when those actions harm others. (Mill, 63 & 64) Mill believes that the harm principle alone (generally; however, he does provide further specifications in the text’s Applications section) is the best method of restricting free speech for several various reasons. In silencing an opinion, whether it is dissenting or in line with the majority’s, speech of the dissent from the individual is consequently stripped as well. Without someone initiating the dissenting discussion, potential for two-way dialogue consequently does not take place either. (Mill, 64) Mill writes that the long-term implications of free speech being restricted extend to future generations as well, stunting their potential success based off of the dialogue of those silenced opinions. Mill also rejects the belief that the onus relies on the state to “overrule” (64 & 13) one’s opinion or set out which of them are to be silenced. In his point of view, the state has no validation behind laws that are legislated & enforced on the basis of being for the general good will of the public. Furthermore, I believe that an important point of emphasis is the negative inference behind Mill’s harm principle. In restricting free speech in such a simple yet vague manner, Mill effectively uses the harm principle to outline what he believes is conversely appropriate autonomous conduct that should be within the individual’s capability, through his definition.
Mill additionally states that opinions should be evaluated on the basis of their legitimacy constantly. He writes that while everyone knows that they are susceptible to having flawed logic, they believe that, most of the time, their logic does not fall under the capability of doing so. (Mill, 15) He goes on to address the ramifications of not subjecting one’s own logic to this realistic possibility and discusses the inverse of his argument as well. He refers to the potential for the majority opinion to be true to the point that it becomes a known truth (and thus, forgotten opinion), which is what he refers to as “dead dogma.” To illustrate what he means by this, he explains the importance of dissenting opinions; that they are necessary because if a true opinion is not debated, the reasoning/justification behind it diminishes over time. (Dr. Alway, lecture 5) In this light, Mill’s term of dead dogma is referring to individuals’ tendency to accept the opinions that have been influenced upon them as truths, and by virtue of the fact, not questioning the reasoning behind their opinions. In one of the possible criticisms against dead dogma, he tackles he issue of whether one must need to question a known truth or not. His response clarifies the critical need for understanding dissenting opinions among known truths; stating that if one is unable to defend against dissent on an opinion that they possess, they do not understand the fundamental basics of their own opinion. (Mill, 29) This segues into my other point concerning dead dogma, which brings to light that an individual who is not aware of the fundamental basics of their opinion will be unable to defend against hypothetical “devil’s advocate” objections because they will lack the reasoning behind it, (Mill, 31) until closer examination of that opinion.
Another important point to cover on free speech that Mill discusses is his belief that individuals should not be held to the standards of the logic of others from doing what they wish in life. (Mill, 29) However, Mill clarifies that this is not equal to one’s justification for not pointing out wrongdoings in other’s behaviours. (Mill, 29) The reason I decided to include this point in my summary of Mill’s argument on free speech is because it highlights a distinction between imposing on one’s autonomy concerning the freedom of speech and being able to speak out against others’ misconducts in the way that they govern themselves, which I believe is vital in analyzing & responding to the full extent of his argument.
I believe Mill’s logic regarding free speech makes logical sense. However, the main issue I have with his arguments are that they are often rooted in a theoretical approach. In theory, to me the harm principle is a sound argument that does a fair job of delineating the limits of one’s liberty. Because of the perspectives that Mill takes upon arguing and counter-arguing in On Liberty by taking the roles of both parties, without further analysis it may seem like Mill’s logic is held to an objectively fair standard. Yet, holes in Mill’s logic began poking their way through when I examined the practicality of his arguments applied to a modern state’s context, and moreover, on an international scale. Even through criticism of his arguments, which will be discussed further in-depth below, credit must be given to Mill for writing On Liberty during his time period. I believe that where his analysis ultimately lies short is in its real-life application to a modern society and will be using Canada’s as a focal point of proof.
A rather illogical assumption that I believe Mill relies on in his argument is in his predisposition of dissenting opinions. Mill quite clearly expresses the necessity of dissent in On Liberty, and subsequently, this need is evidently portrayed through his definition of dead dogma which was discussed earlier. With the need for dissent being a key topic in the text, I find it strange that Mill’s analysis did not fully reach the conclusion of what is to be done about the issue he puts forth. In his argument on dissenting opinions, he states that they must be constantly debated to retain their “living power.” (Mill, 30) This relies on the assumption that I believe Mill is jumping to; that opinions, whether dissenting or in the majority, retain their value if constantly debated. This assumption cannot be practically applied; in a modern Canadian society, citizens do not go out of their way to raise their opinion on every particular topic that they feel needs the least bit of attention (though they have the liberty of doing so). If everyone put the time and effort in for each of their respective topics, I would argue that this would have a reverse effect to what Mill had in mind. I do not believe that dissent of opinions (depending on the topic) is a quick conversation by any means. Citizens of the state would have to dedicate time out of their day in the interest of dissent, when the majority opinion can sometimes be proven (scientifically, for instance) to be the best result or course of action. How this ties in with what I believe Mill’s goal was in highlighting dissent is that it is with the intention of progress, but how are we to suppose the best course of action when building institutions, or (during our rise as a nation) Canada’s electoral process, for example? Mill’s logic of dissenting opinions is not applicable to every situation. Mill exposes a flawed logic in his overarching yin and yang theoretical approach that is taken in explaining dissent’s importance. The existence of one right or true truth is assumed, when as portrayed by the above example or by personal preferences in one’s choice in politicians or religion, we must accept the fact that there is simply not always a right solution.
Although I stated that I consider Mill’s harm principle to be a sound argument, I also do not consider it to be nearing perfection by any means. The question of what constitutes harm was raised in several lectures, but this is only the smoking gun in terms of what Mill, and perhaps people of his time period, believed “harm” to be. Other types of health were not as prevalent under a medical lens during On Liberty’s time period as the most obvious form: physical harm. Thus, it follows that Mill is on the right path of one being held accountable for actions that are harmful to others (in the literal sense). However, it fails to recognize harm under any classification other than physical, ruling out mental, emotional, and social harm. Mill’s logic behind his harm principle is just. Nonetheless, suppose that same principle was legislatively passed today; among the many issues it would cause, the other types of health which are just as necessary would lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the state.
I do not believe that there are strictly untenable qualities behind Mill’s arguments, I feel that they (for the most part) flow logically into one another. This is in part due to his analysis of potential criticisms, which assists the reader in understanding the logic of what Mill specifically wants to avoid in his arguments for free speech that he puts forth. However, although they are not untenable, his arguments can be attacked, as shown by the above criticisms. Mill’s arguments were sound & rational, and for its time period, were difficult to argue against. This may also be the case because there was no precedent set around free speech in the way that it is maintained in several states today. As we look to the past with the hindsight of being aware of the different types of ruling systems in our modern age, there is subsequently room for debate around Mill’s arguments on free speech that presents itself with that hindsight.
All the above argumentative points in conjunction with each other lead me to agree with Mill’s arguments, on the whole. I acknowledge that his arguments are much less complicated theoretically than if they were to be practically maintained in our modern world today. By taking into account the degree of global communications relations that take place, the freedom of speech is, by most accounts, harder to be maintained. However, it is still important to be maintained to be free. Therefore, we as the collective citizens of the state must strive to hit this high “bar” of the theoretical standard of free speech that Mill writes about, as we cannot fully rely on the state itself to fulfill this necessary prerequisite to progress. As stated earlier, both the state and its society must work in tandem for optimal progress within the state to occur. Where my view branches off from Mill’s is that, as stated above, I feel that certain parts of his logic could be developed further. Taking the experiences of our modern world and applying it to Mill’s work would combine his perception of the world and how it is applicable to us today realistically. Upon reflection, it is unreasonable to expect a work of political theory to be 100% sound, more than 150 years after its initial publication. What I ultimately feel should be altered to reflect this is to account for laws that are already legislatively passed, that are maintained as a staple of a Canadian society. For example, dissent of majority opinions for murder and thievery, for instance, are generally unnecessary in my opinion. I would argue that these known truths are useful for the purpose of a society being built on certain core foundations. While discussion of dissent of these core foundational truths is welcome at the right time & place, there is only so much vagueness pertaining to the law that a society can be built on to be fully prosperous.
To conclude, On Liberty sets a necessary precedent on the topic of the freedom of speech, and more importantly, liberty itself. Although it has some flaws that must be addressed, my intention in writing this essay was never to undermine Mill’s work. I believe the standard that his logic sets is, in a sense, a prerequisite to understanding the nature of our free speech in our modern society, as it as undoubtedly helped to shape the state’s thoughts on liberty.
References
Freedom of Expression – Canadian Civil Liberties Association. (2019) Retrieved 9 October 2019, from https://ccla.org/focus-areas/fundamental-freedoms/freedom-of-expression-2/
Mill, John Stuart – On Liberty (1859) London: J. W. Parker
Jeruson J., ARCHIVED. 