Author: John Stuart Mill
I’ve been interested in the subject of freedom of speech lately and this book came up as one of the definitive pieces of literature on the subject so I decided to read it.
I have a couple thoughts I want to express on the front end of my notes:
For many people, including myself at times, saying the phrase “free speech” brings kind of an icky feeling because it seems so often we hear about it in the context of racism or intolerance, and claiming freedom of speech can be seen as a thinly veiled excuse to say horrible things. I’ve perceived this effect recently as I have talked with friends about my digging into the subject, and right when I say the words “free speech”, there is a noticeable cringe or a tuning out of the conversation which I think is based in this idea that free speech is in many ways just a legal vehicle to say awful things and get away with it.
This has frustrated me because it tells me that culture is reframing how we think about free speech. We can get so hung up on specific instances of language people use in the name of freedom that we miss the deeper and more important idea which is trying to understand why our societies so strongly emphasized this as a fundamental human right. I think the arguments for freedom of speech are incredibly compelling and substantially outweigh the negatives that can come along with it.
The trends over the last few years in which institutions like universities are developing safe spaces, or suppressing speakers which students say are committing violence with their speech seems to send a signal that our current rights to freedom of expression might be viewed as a decreasing priority when weighed against our desire not to offend each other, or say things that could be perceived as hurtful or violent.
Though I have no desire to offend anyone, we need to risk offending people in pursuit of truth. When dealing with meaningful topics, it is impossible to have a substantive opinion on something and not offend someone. 1 on 1, maybe there is a chance no one gets offended. 1 in 10? 1 in 100? Those odds go way down. If we couldn’t offend anyone, our public discourse and debates would have to be on topics like lollipops and sunshine and completely avoid any conversation that is meaningful to our lives.
When we think to ourselves or in like-minded groups, our thoughts are clouded by our own biases and blind spots. We need to bring our thoughts and beliefs out into the open to hear opposing views. Hearing opposing views has the effect of sharpening what we know to be true, or allows us to see where we are wrong. Learning you are wrong is uncomfortable, but the alternative is to continue living life with a false understanding of the world. If you were wrong about what a lemon zester is, the new info is useful, but not life changing. But what if we are wrong about something substantial? Changing our minds could be hugely meaningful to our lives.
Freedom of speech is also important to prevent groupthink from the majorities or opinions of those in power to become pervasive, it gives a voice to the minority. It also gives us freedom to criticize institutions like our government without threat of penalty.
I want to bring up one other thought. It seems freedom of speech is often described as a right wing proclivity. Obviously for free speech to be effective though, we need it upheld across the right and the left. This makes me think of how those of us on the left, need the right, and those of us on the right, need the left. I don’t think one side of the political spectrum owns the correct way to structure society. We live in tension. The right can go too far. The left can go too far. We need to constantly discuss and adjust when we start moving too far in one direction. Freedom of speech is the tool we use to have those conversations.
I won’t say any more on the topic because John Stuart Mill has done an infinitely better job of articulating it in chapter 2 of On Liberty than I could ever do, so I will discuss chapter two below.
There are five chapters in the book, but the most weighty are chapters two and three, which I will reserve my notes for.
One of the clear themes in this chapter is Mills argument on infallibility.
To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as an absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.
The danger Mill outlines in silencing someone’s opinion, even if they are the only person on earth with that opinion, is that they might be right. And to be assured that they are not right, is to assume the infallibility of your own beliefs. And since humans are not infallible, Mill argues that we have no authority to decide an issue for all people.
This isn’t to say that Mill believed truth to be subjective. He didn’t assert that all opinions are equally as valid, just that any opinion has a chance to be true and thus shouldn’t be silenced as we need the truth to come to light to progress as a society.
A common criticism on this subject that Mill addresses in the chapter is that people acting according to their convictions are obligated to act against speech that they feel will be harmful to humanity, even if they are wrong. I think we see this today. All of us are prone to assuming what we believe is right, and on important issues, opinions on the contrary can seem harmful to society and we feel obligated to do something. Here we can have some empathy for those who yell speakers off stages or shut down conversations they feel are harmful. They assume they are right, and they assume opinions on the contrary are harmful to society, so they step in.
Mill argues this point by saying that the only possible way to confirm if the persons beliefs are truly correct is if there is freedom to discuss and disprove those beliefs. He states that humans can only correct their mistakes by actually experiencing them through life experience or discussion.
Another really interesting thought he provided answers whether it is fruitful to allow continued discussion on a point we have found to be true. Mill argues that truth can be justifiably persecuted because truth will survive persecution. He clarifies that truth may not necessarily always triumph over persecution, especially in the short term, but over time truth will tend towards rediscovery if it has been repressed.
Taking this point further, Mill also argues that even if we come to something that is proven to be true, it needs to continue to be debated or it becomes a “dead dogma.” What he means by this is that if something that is found to be true simply continues to exist, people will come to just accept it as is, and not fully understand it or be able to defend it in the future. So in that sense, objections to the truth, even if they are wrong, still help to keep the truth alive.
Mill illustrates this in the context of Christianity and suggests that when people stop having their beliefs challenged, they lose their “living power” and peoples conduct begins to not align with what they accept to be true (a common criticism of Christians today).
Even though On Liberty seems to be primarily discussed in relation to chapter two, I liked the overall theme of chapter three a lot even though it was fairly general.
Mill argues that people should not hide their eccentricity and not conform to the mediocrity that society tends toward demanding. He encourages people to cultivate their individuality as opposed to conforming with society and states that they become more valuable to both themselves and to others by doing so.
Genius can only breathe free in an atmosphere of freedom
He argues that people need different atmospheres to reach their potential that can’t be prescribed to a one size fits all formula and that the healthiest societies provide the freedom for people to follow more than one pattern of living.
Mill emphasizes that societies naturally drift towards conformity. In conformity, people are not able to develop as meaningfully and don’t have the opportunity to learn from others potentially desirable ways of approaching life. He does argue that too much freedom of individuality is possible and makes us “barbarians”, where as too much conformity stagnates us and provides no vitality to society. Mill discusses how we live in this tension and calls it a “constantly negotiated terrain.”