Editing John Stuart Mill (section)

====Freedom of speech====
''On Liberty'' involves an impassioned defence of [[free speech]]. Mill argues that free [[discourse]] is a [[necessary condition]] for intellectual and [[social progress]]. We can never be sure, he contends, that a silenced opinion does not contain some element of the truth. He also argues that allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. First, individuals are more likely to abandon erroneous beliefs if they are engaged in an open [[exchange of ideas]]. Second, by forcing other individuals to re-examine and re-affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere [[dogma]]. It is not enough for Mill that one simply has an unexamined belief that happens to be true; one must understand why the belief in question is the true one. Along those same lines Mill wrote, "unmeasured vituperation, employed on the side of prevailing opinion, really does deter people from expressing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who express them."<ref>Mill, John Stuart. [1859] 1909. "[[iarchive:harvardclassics25eliouoft/page/194/mode/2up|On Liberty]]". pp. 195–290 in ''[[Harvard Classics]]'' 25, edited by [[Charles William Eliot|C. W. Eliot]]. New York: [[P.F. Collier and Son|PF Collier & Son]]. [[iarchive:harvardclassics25eliouoft/page/248/mode/2up|p. 248]].</ref><ref name=":4" />{{Rp|51}}

As an influential advocate of freedom of speech, Mill objected to censorship:<ref>Mill, John Stuart. [1859] 1985. ''On Liberty'', edited by [[Gertrude Himmelfarb|G. Himmelfarb]], UK: [[Penguin Books|Penguin]]. pp. 83–84.</ref>

<blockquote>I choose, by preference the cases which are least favourable to me—in which the argument opposing freedom of opinion, both on truth and that of [[utility]], is considered the strongest. Let the opinions impugned be the belief in God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality. ... But I must be permitted to observe, that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of [[infallibility]]. It is the undertaking to decide that question ''for others'', without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less, if put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions. However positive any one's persuasion may be, not only of the falsity, but of the pernicious consequences–not only of the pernicious consequences, but (to adopt expressions which I altogether condemn) the immorality and impiety of an opinion; yet if, in pursuance of that private judgment, though backed by the public judgment of his country or his contemporaries, he prevents the opinion from being heard in its defence, he assumes infallibility. And so far from the assumption being less objectionable or less dangerous because the opinion is called immoral or impious, this is the case of all others in which it is most fatal.</blockquote>

Mill outlines the benefits of "searching for and discovering the truth" as a way to further knowledge. He argued that even if an opinion is false, the truth can be better understood by refuting the error. And as most opinions are neither completely true nor completely false, he points out that allowing free expression allows the airing of competing views as a way to preserve partial truth in various opinions.<ref name="Freedomof">Paul, Ellen Frankel, Fred Dycus Miller, and Jeffrey Paul. 2004. ''Freedom of Speech'' 21. [[Cambridge University Press]].</ref> Worried about minority views being suppressed, he argued in support of freedom of speech on political grounds, stating that it is a critical component for a [[representative government]] to have to empower debate over [[public policy]].<ref name="Freedomof" /> He also eloquently argued that freedom of expression allows for [[personal growth]] and [[self-realization]]. He said that freedom of speech was a vital way to develop talents and realise a person's potential and creativity. He repeatedly said that eccentricity was preferable to uniformity and stagnation.<ref name="Freedomof" />