Mill, On Liberty (Free Speech, Pt. 1)

On Liberty

What a free society is:

> Central document of modern liberalism and libertarianism.

> Justifies most of what we today consider civil rights, as an important extension of inalienable freedom.

Sometimes at odds with Utilitarianism.

> Sharply rejects such ‘tyranny of the majority’.

> The minority retains the right to make its case.

> No rule that denies freedom can maximize happiness.

Against tyranny

Civil liberty: bulwark against tyranny, specifically freedom of speech, expression, and press.

Mill regards truth as intrinsically good.

> Oppressed opinion is right —> suppressing it will deprive those who do not hold it of the truth.

> Oppressed opinion is wrong —> suppressing it will deprive those who do hold it of the truth.

Censorship is against truth

Fallibility

Free speech is the practical implementation of the theoretical insight that we are fallible.

> When well defended, stands against absolutism

Objection - Is there good censorship?

Yes, we are fallible and in the past censorship has wrongly suppressed truths.

> But does this mean that now we should not censor at all?

> Consider: we are fallible and in the past have, wrongly, criminalized good actions.

> This doesn’t mean that now we should not criminalize anything

 The objection: things that are done wrong can be done well.

> So why not do censorship well?

Rebuttal

Yes, censorship is different!

> When one acts on one’s best knowledge, one is still open for refutation and argument.

> But censorship takes this openness away.

 Acting according to one’s best beliefs is not protecting these beliefs against refutation

We are justified to act to the best of our (fallible) knowledge, only because this knowledge is always up for contest.

 But censorship takes away the contest.

> So censorship is not justified as being merely an action based on the best of one’s knowledge

Knowledge making practices

For state intervention to have legitimacy, it must be built on solid knowledge-making practices

> Particularly commitment to free speech

> Legitimacy = freely given consent of the governed

Knowledge-making requires attending to objections

Facts

A fact alone is not convincing; data alone shows nothing.

> The significance of the fact has to be pointed out.

> Sometimes it takes someone else to find a new interpretation

Counterpoint - dangerous truths

Might be such a thing as a dangerous truth that is best kept away from people.

> We should not pursue truth, but the good.

> And if these are at odds, the truth may be censored.

Can a suppression of free speech perhaps be good for society?

> Should a government enforce certain moral principles, because they are needed, say, for the stability of society.

> Maybe only people wishing to cause hurt would question them.

If some law truly promotes greatest happiness, why permit it that people try to repeal it?

Rebuttal

These are matters to be determined in free discussion.

> What promotes greatest happiness is very difficult to determine.

> What beliefs are dangerous is equally difficult to determine.

People against free discussion have undermined their own case.

> In order to know whether they have a case, we need to permit exactly what they deny: free speech

Against making decisions on which beliefs are worth discussing

Even smart people, enlightened societies made mistakes.

> Why would you take away from yourself the possibility to have an error pointed out

Counterpoint - censorship is okay because truth will win anyway

> Perhaps it is even a good thing that a revolutionary truth must clear some tall hurdles.

> It means that those in possession of the truth have to find convincing proof.

Rebuttal

Simply not true that truth always wins.

> Even if it eventually wins, we may be deprived of it for centuries

Shunning

> Mill considers shunning wrong when used as punishment.

> But you can still individually not like somebody

Optimist about how speech promotes truth.

> Did not think that free debate may promote falsity over truth.

> ‘Propaganda’ was not a bad word back then

Rebuttal

Exchanges of views are important, but could free discussion also be an impediment to truth?

> Opportunity costs: if we spend time hearing out the Flat Earthers, what other truths could have been found in that time?

> Social costs: if we include bigots, who are we thereby excluding? (and what would they contribute?)