Who Is John Stuart Mill's Argument

John Stuart Mill discusses in his essay On Liberty, whether or not an authority should be able to limit another beings expression of their own opinion. The essay is centered on liberty, and transfers into Mills opinion on freedom of expression and speech. Mill argues that “if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill 20). This argument parallels Thrasymachus’ argument in Plato’s The Republic, because Mill appears to be arguing that the stronger group is allowed to limit the expression of the weaker group, much where Thrasymachus believes justice is the advantage of the stronger. Mill believes that the Harm Principle must protect people from some expressions, but not though. While thought is personal, and only affects oneself, expression of those thoughts can occasionally affect others. Because expression can harm others, Mill believes that under the Harm Principle, it can be regulated. Mill does eventually consider, however, that “the

peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race…if the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error” (Mill 20).
Mill’s corn dealer example attempts to answer the question of ‘what types of speech cause harm’.

He explains that it is not harmful to suggest that a corn dealer is starving the poor when it is written in the news, but that it is harmful when that sentiment is expressed in front of an angry mob outside of the corn dealer’s home. An angry mob outside of the corn dealers home could presently cause harm to the corn dealer, Mill explains, and that this expression “such as to constitute…a positive instigation to some mischievous act” (Mill 66) and thus the corn dealer is in danger. This example provides Mills opinion on what expressions should be permitted or limited. Mill believes that only if an expression puts a being in present danger should it be limited, and that it depends on the medium of expression as to whether or not it is

appropriate
Overall, Mill attempts to argue that expression can be limited under the Harm Principle. If one’s expression can “instigate some mischievous act” it prompts present danger against an individual and can thus be limited. If the same expression is given in an environment where it does not promote a mischievous act, then that expression can be permitted.