Mill, On Liberty, Chapters I and II

This is an important and major philosophical text, but it's not well organized. My general advice is to just plough ahead and try to sort it out when you finish the chapter, reskimming certain sections as necessary. Mill is a liberal theorist. Like our previous liberal theorist, Locke, he'll offer an elaborate defense for why we should value something most people value anyway, without really thinking to hard about it (in Locke's case, property; in Mill's case, it's freedom of speech and lifestyle).

(of course, as a sidenote, perhaps I'm being naive about public opinion regarding freedom of speech--see here for an interesting report on a survey of high school students, teachers and principles on free speech. Observe with concern that 83% of high school students think "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions," which means that fully one in six high schoolers presumably think we shouldn't! And only half of our nation's youth think newspapers should publish freely without government approval of stories. Parents, don't forget to teach your kids about the first amendment.)

Many people in our society, bolstered by the legal tradition surrounding the first amendment, have more or less Lockean reasons for defending freedom of speech. That is, we think speech, even mean, nasty vile speech, should be free because freedom of speech is a fundamental right. What I'm about to say is important, so pay attention: This is not the reason Mill gives for freedom of speech. I'm not saying Mill disagrees with this position, but it's not the reason he gives. Instead, he wants to tell us that freedom of speech, even for the most vile and reprehensible political speech, should be allowed because it is in our interests to do so.

Imagine, if you will, a neo-nazi setting up shop with her soapbox and literature on the stairs in the middle of campus. For 70 hours a week, she gives loud, angry speeches filled with hate and vitriol, and hands out literature in the same vein. You hear her every time you come to campus, unavoidably. Those of us with a rights-based approach to free speech, this person represents in many ways the unfortunate downside to freedom of speech. In other words, we have to tolerate her because she is within her rights, but we really with she would go away and stop exercising her speech rights.


In chapter one, be sure to note Mill's "harm principle" (which would be more accurately named the no-harm principle). This is Mill's liberal foundation. Think about a) how it's similar to Locke's concept of natural right, b) how it's different, and c) problems with the harm principle. Here's one problem for you: is it possible to make a clean, sharp distinction between other regarding and self regarding practices? What might some borderline cases be?

What does Mill think about the relationship bewteen democracy and freedom of speech?

One reason we have to have freedom of speech, Mill says, is fallibility. Explain.

In chapter two, Mill goes to great lengths to show why freedom of speech is valuable in the following cases:

Freedom of speech that is entirely false
Freedom of speech that is entirely true
Freedom of speech that is partially true and partially false.

Give an account of his reasons in each case.

Finally, consider some counter-arguments. Why might we want to consider restricting freedom of speech.

(Those of you doing "rights of individuals" in the social contract, compare your freedom of speech provisions to Mill's, just for fun. Did you come to similar conclusions?)