Did John Stuart Mill really believe in universal free speech?
Chris Sealey
Utilitarianism is the principle that utility should be maximized within a society with utility defined as happiness, pleasure or the satisfaction of desires (known as the Utility Principle). Perhaps the most famous utilitarian was John Stuart Mill. Living from 1803-1873, he published a number of works, most famously On Liberty . He believed that freedom of expression would also lead to utility being maximized in the long run because, ‘If 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’ (Mill, 2007). Further to this Mills believed that utility would be maximized in the long run if his Harm Principle was obeyed; ‘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’ (Mill, 2007). However, these two beliefs seem to come into conflict and this is the problem which my essay will be centred upon. While free speech is important to Mill, he does set out circumstances in which this right maybe restricted but in practice the application of these theories are complicated and subjective. It is important to understand Mill’s justification for free speech. In On Liberty Mill devoted a whole chapter to arguments regarding safeguarding freedom of speech in pursuit of his utilitarian aims. Underlying each of these is the assumption that the truth is always desirable. He believed that the truth would become apparent if free speech was allowed through what he called the free marketplace of ideas (Mill, 2007). Further to this is that no matter how sure someone is of an idea, concept or opinion their judgment is always fallible. This means that when people believe they speak an objective truth it is actually subjective. It is therefore only through universal free speech that these ideas are explored and scrutinized leading to the truth emerging and ‘non-truths’ being buried. Mill suggests that limitations on free speech would undermine this process and undesirable non-truths may surface (Warburton, 2009). Mill was particularly anxious that free speech would enable even the minority voices to be heard. As he stated that everyone’s views are fallible, even the idea held by a majority may be no more truthful than the minority. Mill sets out three scenarios to demonstrate the casualties of silencing the minority. Firstly, he imagined that if a majority held view were false and minority held view were true, without freedom of speech the majority would silence the minority. This would mean that the majority held falsehood would never be challenged. Secondly, he imagined a situation where the majority is correct and the minority is wrong. Through free speech the majority’s ideas will be scrutinized by the minority thereby helping them be recognized, developed and not forgotten. Mill’s third scenario involved both the majority and the minority being partly correct but not completely truthful. He viewed this as the most common of the three scenarios and his argument is simple; the majority should enable the minority to express their partial truth and in this dialogue the truth will emerge (Cartwright, 2003). These examples combine to demonstrate that any restriction on free discussion impedes the truth and damages the qualities of mind of those people whose access to discussion is limited. Mill also introduced the Harm Principle which appears to contradict his concept of free speech. He states that the only time civilized societies can exercise power over any individual, including free speech, is to prevent harm to others. However the very act of curbing free speech interferes with his free market place of ideas and inevitably causes some harm. So, for example, if an opposition politician gives his opinion on the government in power, this will inevitably harm the current ruler. However, to intervene in this instance based on the harm principle would lead to the suppression of free speech, the free market of ideas being compromised and truth buried.
98
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker