Matteliano 1
Nicholas Matteliano
Dr. Todd Alway
Political Science 1AA3
14 October 2019
On Liberty and Restricting Free Speech
On Liberty shows us that John Stuart Mill is almost a free speech absolutist. His only restriction
on speech is when speech may cause harm. Many assume that he means only physical harm, but he
does define harm in terms of vices as well. Mill’s time was different from ours, leaving his argument
subjected to new and unforeseen circumstances in the modern age. In his time what was private and
public speech was clearly defined. This essay attempts to explain why Mill thought liberty was essential
to a successful society, the different ways Mill defined harm, why he applied different rules to private
and public speech, and how the principles he used to justify the restriction of speech in his time may
change if he were alive to apply his argument to modern scenarios.
On Liberty outlines the way societies should mediate the use of authority, “the nature and limits
of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (Mill 1). John Stuart Mill
clearly valued liberty in the highest regard. His explanation for this begins with tyranny. Tyranny through
a “governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or
conquest” has been known since ancient times, but with the proliferation of democracy came the
discovery of a new tyranny – a tyranny of the majority (1-2, 4). Mill’s primary focus was to make sense of
the extent that not only a state, but society as a whole has to impose its values on individuals (4).
Society can be tyrannical beyond the state, and Mill feared this more than a tyranny that is merely
confined to the functions of politics (4). In Mill’s view a tyranny enforced by the general population is
worse because it is an all-encompassing tyranny that permeates the basic functions of daily life by
affecting societal norms (4). Beyond desiring freedom from coercion, Mill believed that "over himself,
Matteliano 2
over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (10). His argument is based on utility, which he
viewed as “the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions” (12). Utility judges the merit of ethical claims on
the basis of their usefulness to society, hence its name (12). Mill advocated for liberty because he felt
that “silencing the expression of an opinion” is “a peculiar evil that is robbing the human race; posterity
as well as the existing generation” (18). He argued this was because “popular opinions ... are ... seldom
or never the whole truth. They are part of the truth; ... but ... disjoined from the truths by which they
ought to be accompanied and limited” (51). In other words, the truth can be scattered between
opposing doctrines despite a society’s perception of their potential half truth being infallibly true – they
may need to study ideas they do not wish to hear to achieve a more complete understanding of the
truth because even such ideas may contain part of the truth (51). “He who knows only his own side of
the case, knows little of that” (41). This ties into what Mill calls “dead dogma” - “if [the truth] is not fully,
frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.” (38). Mill likens
the function of the truth to that of a muscle its “powers are improved only by being used” and they
atrophy when they are not (66). Dead dogma creates a “general atmosphere of mental slavery” which
makes the proliferation of “great individual thinkers” very difficult, but more importantly to Mill, the
goal of “an intellectually active people” would be impossible (38).
Most of Mill’s essay argues for maximizing free speech in nearly every situation, but Mill
restricts free speech only the basis of what has been called the “harm principle.” Mill declared that “that
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” (10). It can be assumed that by saying this he meant
physical harm, but this statement is especially vague in the case of speech. Mill limits speech where
harm is involved, but he defines harm in multiple ways in different passages. This leaves us with the
question of how free we should be to speak opinions through which harm can be brought about in a
number of ways that are not physical. Mill does not directly answer this question, so I can only infer
Matteliano 3
what his position is by piecing together what he implies in other passages not directly related to this
question. The closest Mill comes to addressing this question directly is in his example of a mob in front
of a corn dealer’s house (63). He claims that the opinion that corn dealers are “starvers of the poor,”
regardless of the integrity of the statement, is perfectly acceptable “when simply circulated through the
press” but punishment would not only be justified, but necessary if one were to present this argument
“to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer” either orally or on posters (63). Mill
considers inciting this mob to be wrong because it fans the flame; the assumption here is that the mob
would attack the house. However, he does claim that one “must not make himself a nuisance to other
people” (63). I believe he may have hinted at defamation as falling under “nuisance,” but I believe that
he should have explicitly addressed this issue. I believe that defamation, false or exaggerated targeted
statements clearly intended to destroy one’s reputation, both written and spoken, is purely destructive
and should not be tolerated by society. The consequences of this are similar to what Mill sees wrong
with the way opinions could be expressed in the corn example. If an individual made it their mission to
defame these corn dealers, corn dealers could face angry mobs at their homes everyday for the
foreseeable future. I would argue that the constant pestering one would receive from a vocally angry
mob has the capacity to totally destroy someone’s life and certainly qualifies as violence.
Mill said that “acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others …
absolutely require to be controlled … by the active interference of mankind (64). Although Mill did
implicate “acts of whatever kind” as potentially guilty, he did not also say “harm of whatever kind”; thus
the meaning of harm is left ambiguous in this passage. (64). One may get the impression that physical
harm is where Mill draws the line, but he includes vices like sex and gambling as harm and he denounces
inciting the moral harm associated with vices via pimping or owning a gambling later in On Liberty. Still,
he does not recommend various degrees of punishment for the ways in which one can incite moral
harm. How should pimps be punished vs those who are not pimps, but encourage people to use them? I
Matteliano 4
believe Mill partially clarified this when he declared that simply being offended by an opinion does not
qualify under the “harm principle.” He asserted that "there is no parity between the feeling of a person
for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it" (94). In other words, a
person’s offence at another’s opinion does not solely outweigh the right that person has to express that
opinion. Mill also extends this to actions one commits which are only detrimental to one’s self with the
exception of suicide (12, 117). One’s being offended by another’s self-inflicted actions does not override
that person’s ability to act as they wish. However, Mill also neglects to explain how encouraging vices,
like gambling and sex, through one’s words may or may not fall under the harm principle. Mill argued
vices like sex and gambling should be tolerated in one’s home, but pimping and “public gambling-houses
should not be permitted” (113). Mill justifies “fining or imprisoning the procurer, but not the fornicator,
the gambling-house keeper, but not the gambler” (113). The rationale here is that institutionalizing sex
and gambling are social actions involving the whole of society and not actions that affect only one’s self.
However, while Mill condemns pimps and gambling-house owners, he has nothing to say about people
who encourage others to go to these places but are not themselves pimps or gambling-house owners.
But because Mill seems to see the publicity of these acts as the real issue, I would say that Mill would
likely restrict advertising these acts in the way it is done today under the harm principle. However, I do
not think he would restrict one’s suggestion to partake in immoral vices in a private situation.
Mill’s argument operates on an assumption that there is a clear divide between the private and
public spheres. What is considered public or private is more of a thorny question now than in Mill’s time
because there was more of a clear difference between what one does privately vs what you do in a
private frame work. Our lives are more public now because private conversations could be made
publicly available in many ways. The walls are down, so liberty in under threat because the ripple effect
of what one says is much more. A post on a small thread on the internet can be seen as relatively
private, but it can blow up and have very public effects. Even defamation is okay in private; it is only
Matteliano 5
wrong in public because what is being defamed is no longer confined to the context of a few individuals,
leaving the victim exposed to harm from the general populace. One can contain how a few individuals
behind closed doors will act on inflammatory information, but this is not so when one is concerned with
the entire public. Hence Mill’s corn dealer example (63). Individuals can do a lot of things privately, but
it is hard to know what is private anymore. It is also harder to impose restrictions on speech now to
begin with. In Mills time, public speech was seen as something that deserved to be public; thus his
argument also depends on an assumption of speech being protected by elitism. The authority of one’s
speech was more hierarchal then. Today, with the Internet, anyone can magnify the authority of their
words without credentials; public speech has far less channels it needs to go to before is becomes
public.
Mill’s argument also depends on the idea that free discussion always leads to progress by
brining society closer to the truth. Mill acknowledged those who believe contesting certain truths (e.g.
belief in God) could be detrimental to the foundation of society, but he countered this, answering that
“complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in
assuming its truth for purposes of action” (20). I agree. But does the kind of conversation Mill spoke of
actually ever happen? I believe he saw this more as a difficult, but attainable goal worth striving for than
a current reality. He saw individuals as rational actors and desired to push society towards a state where
average people would be inclined to think critically (38). This is why Mill valued an enlightened populace
over the proliferation of a few geniuses, to allow this type of progressive conversation to be popularly
available (38). However, Mill had certain criteria for who he saw as worthy of liberty. He believed that
children and “backward” societies should not have liberty because they are incapable of adhering to
rational arguments and making proper judgements on their own behalf (11).
Matteliano 6
While I disagree with the racial connotations of this statement, I agree that children should not
have the same rights to liberty as adults. While Mill is somewhat justified in denouncing societies which
have not embraced education as “backward,” he is certainly not justified in distinguishing other races as
“backward” as well (120, 11). Using the word “backwards” assumes that they are in need of correction. I
disagree with the way he outright revokes the liberty from certain races and societies in favour of
colonialism. These peoples should be left alone. Nevertheless, I will concede that a certain degree of
elitism must be attached to the expectation of progressive discussion. A society must progress to a
certain point before it can be capable of accepting critical discussion. An intelligent populace can only
exist within a free and open society and in order to reach this goal, society needs to be guided by
authority figures who can make this possible – figures who desire to make society freer (38). I agree with
Mill’s belief that a society must fully accept the value of education in order to produce intelligent people
that will guide society towards the truth (120).
In conclusion, I agree with Mill on nearly all of his points. In the age of “cancel culture,” On
Liberty serves as an important reminder for the value of liberty and free expression in our society. I think
people have lost sight of how fragile liberty and democracy are. Canada is only 152 years old and in the
context of history, that is a very insignificant amount of time. People need to be reminded of the role of
personal liberty in the creation of a social environment that is conducive to democracy. Democracy plays
into our society not simply at the political level but at the social level as well. The cultural sentiments
that support political democracy are deeply related to ideas of personal expression and the belief in our
right to say what we genuinely think and be free from punishment for doing so. I strongly agree with Mill
on the importance of liberty in society, but I disagree with his paternalistic approach to societies who do
not share our values and his support of colonialism. I would also include defamation as harmful speech
that ought to be restricted.
Matteliano 7
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty (AmazonClassics Edition) Amazon Classics. Kindle Edition.