The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Does anyone think Mill was mistaken? If so, why?
We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.
First, 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.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, 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 a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
(France, Turkey: Read the whole thing.)
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Freedom of opinion - yes.
Freedom of speech - yes.
Freedom of expression - maybe. It is far too easy for courts to rule just about any anti-social human behaviour as expression.
If a society uses the word "expression" instead of "speech" in its laws, it had better dang well define where expression ends and behaviour begins.
Feb '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
These sound like the right reasons to me. Rejecting these four reasons for freedom of expression seems to me to be denying the fundamentally rational character of our fellow human beings, which alone can justify a liberal society.
Mar '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Misthiocracy: Freedom of opinion - yes.
Freedom of speech - yes.
Freedom of expression - maybe. It is far too easy for courts to rule just about any anti-social human behaviour as expression.
If a society uses the word "expression" instead of "speech" in its laws, it had better dang well define where expression ends and behaviour begins. · Dec 22 at 6:34am
I agree. Your freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.
Other than that, finding the limits is pretty tough. Standing up in the middle of a church service and holding forth on The Truth may be satisfying, but in the end, it's just rude. People who do that aren't convincing anyone, they are just annoying them. The Speaker of the Truth can and should discuss this with the authorities at his disorderly conduct hearing.
May '10
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Agree too.
Wanted to link to Hitchen's speech in Toronto 5 years ago where he defends free speech with references to Mill among others. It is smart and funny too.
4 Youtube parts but you can skip part 2 as part 3 covers it and more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU
May '10
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Because something is legal does not mean it should be tolerated. It's a mistake to consider government the sole arbiter and enforcer of our freedom or its limits.
Apr '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Just how much intolerance are you talking? Do you share Jonah Goldberg's support, for instance, for those who would physically harass (I think he puts it stronger) Fred Phelps and his ilk?
Feb '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
I'm with Mill and Voltaire.
There was a kid in my high school who was fond of misquoting Voltaire: "Death to what you say and I disagree with your right to say it." He was kidding (I think) but a lot of self-defined intellectuals, among others, really do seem to think this way today in America.
I think part of the reason for the declining support of free speech is the changes in the nature of work. For a farmer or a machinist or even an electrical engineer, the difference between *speech* and *action* is pretty clear. For a lawyer or a journalist or an advertising person or a professor (outside of the hard sciences), not so much. And there are a lot more people in the second category today than there were even 25 years ago.
Apr '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
david foster:
I think part of the reason for the declining support of free speech is the changes in the nature of work. For a farmer or a machinist or even an electrical engineer, the difference between *speech* and *action* is pretty clear. For a lawyer or a journalist or an advertising person or a professor (outside of the hard sciences), not so much. And there are a lot more people in the second category today than there were even 25 years ago. · Dec 22 at 8:09am
I don't know I would say in the US free speech is on the rise certainly from the stand point of what is deemed criminal or pornographic. I mean crushing small animals with stilettos was ruled as protected speech...Also while the government can not ban speech nothing prevents private institutions from firing people who say things they don't like, or professional organizations from ostracizing these people. I mean should you be able to punish people for disagreeing with you?
Apr '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
As long as free speech is understood to proscribe government interference with speech, Hooray! If free speech becomes understood as the egalitarian Europeans do, as a positive right, then Booo!
Society should be left free to develop independent of the state. Don't count me in league with the Philosophes, though. Voltaire and I would have been at blows, I imagine.
Mar '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Valiuth
david foster:
I think part of the reason for the declining support of free speech is the changes in the nature of work. For a farmer or a machinist or even an electrical engineer, the difference between *speech* and *action* is pretty clear. For a lawyer or a journalist or an advertising person or a professor (outside of the hard sciences), not so much. And there are a lot more people in the second category today than there were even 25 years ago. · Dec 22 at 8:09am
I don't know I would say in the US free speech is on the rise certainly from the stand point of what is deemed criminal or pornographic. I mean crushing small animals with stilettos was ruled as protected speech...Also while the government can not ban speech nothing prevents private institutions from firing people who say things they don't like, or professional organizations from ostracizing these people. I mean should you be able to punish people for disagreeing with you? · Dec 22 at 8:32am
Free speech means "no governmental consequences," as my dad explained right after he said "watch your mouth, boy."
Feb '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
I think this is a mistake. If I threaten a newspaper with violence for publishing unfavorable views about me, I am, in addition to whatever other rights of theirs I am violating, violating their right to free speech. I don’t need to be a government official to do so.
Jul '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
In the slippery slope of what is best for society, I will stand with Mill
"We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion"
Obviously the debate has shifted to what constitutes appropriate expression but it is safe to say the French erred on the side of big brother. The answers to life's questions always have me finding where liberty and freedom are and therein lies truth.
Edited on December 22, 2011 at 9:05pmRe: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
The logician, mathematician and anti-Vietnam War protester Bertrand Russell (the third Earl Russell, not that he ever used the title) lived through almost three-quarters of the twentieth century, dying in 1970.
Russell's godfather, as Christopher Hitchens used to enjoy noting: John Stuart Mill.
The past is closer than we think.
Jul '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Peter Robinson: The logician, mathematician and anti-Vietnam War protester Bertrand Russell (the third Earl Russell, not that he ever used the title) lived through almost three-quarters of the twentieth century, dying in 1970.
Russell's godfather, as Christopher Hitchens used to enjoy noting: John Stuart Mill.
The past is closer than we think. · Dec 22 at 10:32am
Aha, good find.
Jun '10
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Valiuth
I don't know I would say in the US free speech is on the rise certainly from the stand point of what is deemed criminal or pornographic. I mean crushing small animals with stilettos was ruled as protected speech...
On the other hand true political speech has been restricted under the guise of campaign finance reform. If you and your neighbors get together, have some signs printed up, and display them in your front yards you may face prosecution if you fail to register as a PAC, fill out the proper forms, abide by all the applicable rules, and report all your expenses to the proper authorities.
Jun '10
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
SMatthewStolte
I think this is a mistake. If I threaten a newspaper with violence for publishing unfavorable views about me, I am, in addition to whatever other rights of theirs I am violating, violating their right to free speech. I don’t need to be a government official to do so. · Dec 22 at 10:08am
Threatening a newspaper with violence is illegal regardless of your reasons for doing so.
On the other hand, if as a result of something they print you cancel your subscription and attempt to organize a boycott of their sponsors, that does not violate their free speech rights. Free speech does not mean protection from economic or other non-violent consequences.
May '10
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Misthiocracy: Freedom of opinion - yes.
Freedom of speech - yes.
Freedom of expression - maybe. It is far too easy for courts to rule just about any anti-social human behaviour as expression.
If a society uses the word "expression" instead of "speech" in its laws, it had better dang well define where expression ends and behaviour begins.
"Speech" is as vague. Slanders are spoken, so are false interjections such as "Fire!" within theaters. Yet we do not want freedom of speech to encompass these modes of conduct. Both "speech" and "expression" can be used to smuggle in less savory kinds of behavior.
"Speech" is also insufficient. "Expression" is capable of denoting speech as well as non-speech acts that are worthy of non-interference from the government. Its clumsy to claim, as many people do, that the right to engage in the performing arts, say ballet, is subsumed under "freedom of speech" because the act does not involve speech.
Edited on December 22, 2011 at 8:08pmNov '10
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Mill isn't arguing for unlimited freedom of speech here. Elsewhere he qualifies it extensively, e.g. no inciting a crowd to commit violence. Don't forget he wrote the book on Utilitarianism.
Aug '10
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
I like how what he says at the beginning sums up the sentiment nicely that free speech does not absolve the speaker of responsibility for their words:
"Anyone who wants to say anything abusive about or to me is quite free to do so, and welcome in fact ... at their own risk."
Also, the audience is predictably feckless. They cheer when he criticizes "religion", but they're silent when he criticizes "islam". Way to make Hitchens' point for him, folks!
Edited on December 22, 2011 at 10:28pmFeb '11
Re: The Argument for Freedom of Expression
Joseph Stanko
Threatening a newspaper with violence is illegal regardless of your reasons for doing so. … · Dec 22 at 10:55am
That’s not the point. The point is that the freedom of speech (and press, say) is not limited to a right against those persons acting on behalf of the government. A person who threatens violence against the same newspaper, because he holds a grudge against an employer who dismissed him, would of course be acting wrongly. And he would be violating the rights of persons in the newspaper. But among those rights violated would not be the freedom of speech.
I’m not making the point just as a matter of logic. If newspapers capitulate to threats of violence, then by that capitulation, they may encourage future threats. When those threats of violence are directed against certain opinions, they erode the protection of a fundamental right that most of us today take for granted. But if we are in the habit of thinking only the government can violate that fundamental right, then we will be unable to see this danger, and unable to avoid it.