Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in On Liberty, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Liberty and Authority
Individuality vs. Conformity
Social Tyranny and Custom
Morality, New Ideas, and Progress
Summary
Analysis
Mill writes that the time for defending freedom of the press is past, nor is there any need to persuade people of its necessity. So many writers have written about it from this perspective that there is no longer a need to dwell on it. Most constitutional governments wouldn’t dare put limits on freedom of the press. Society has no right to silence anyone—either through public opinion or legislation—just because their personal opinion differs from the rest. Mill argues that silencing any opinion is evil because it robs all of humanity of the opportunity to either improve by conforming to it or improve by using a false opinion to better determine the truth. Mill proposes to explore both ideas separately.
Mill’s argument that society has no right to silence opinions reveals what he believes is one of the greatest social evils: censorship. People don’t generally own up to their support of censoring anything because of the stigma attached to censorship, but Mill zeroes in on the fact that silencing divergent opinions by stigmatizing those who hold them is as reprehensible as deliberately censoring the publication of a book or song.
Themes
First, the opinion in question might be true even though those trying to suppress it believe it’s wrong. Still, nobody has the right to deprive others of hearing the opinion and determining its worth for themselves. The assumption that a divergent opinion is false is the same as assuming one’s own infallibility, and this argument can be used to condemn it. Unfortunately, people rarely consider their own fallibility in practical matters, nor do they try to protect themselves from it. People generally benefit from hearing their opinions contradicted, although they run the risk of putting too much confidence in the infallibility of the opinions which the people in their social circle hold. This belief in other people’s infallibility isn’t shaken by acknowledging that other worlds (times, cultures, churches, and so on) hold other beliefs, and fate determines which world a person is born into.
Believing in the infallibility of anyone—be it one’s self or another person—is dangerous because it gives that person too much power. If they claim to be infallible on one topic, it is conceivable that they would claim to be infallible in general and thus gather followers and exert undue control over them. This infringes individual liberty and holds society’s development back because these people would inevitably silence any discussion about opinions that might introduce people to new modes of living or thought.
Themes
Literary Devices
Every age has held false opinions that later ages go on to condemn, but Mill rejects the idea that people should simply stop holding opinions or enforcing those they have reason to believe are true on these grounds. In fact, if society, after careful deliberation, decides an opinion is true, there is a moral obligation to act on it and oppose opinions that are considered false or dangerous to society. Mill reiterates that just because the actions of past ages—including opinions, taxes, and even wars—have been condemned doesn’t mean modern societies shouldn’t act upon their beliefs. Additionally, there must be freedom to contradict any opinion as discussion provides the opportunity to explore whether the opinion is true or not.
Mill wants to impress upon the reader the necessity of identifying and maintaining a balance between holding meaningful opinions and being willing to let those opinions go if something better comes along. In other words, it is incredibly important that everyone in society keeps an open mind, both for their own benefit and for society’s.
Themes
Literary Devices
Mill believes that people are generally rational and capable of fixing their mistakes. They do this by gaining experience through trial and error, and through discussing opinions and ideas with other people. These discussions must be allowed to take place in order to create positive change in society. Mill argues that only people who are open to criticism of their opinions—something which they ultimately profit by—deserve to be confident in their truth and wisdom. In fact, Mill thinks it wouldn’t be a bad thing to require supposedly wise men to be questioned by the public. Mill argues that even the Catholic Church (which he considers the most intolerant of criticism) considers arguments against canonization before granting someone sainthood.
Mill chooses to use the Catholic Church as an example here because the Catholic Church was, in Mill’s day, notoriously considered closed-minded, old-fashioned, and very unprogressive. In other words, if the Catholic Church will listen to arguments, then why wouldn’t the average person?
Themes
Literary Devices
Get the entire On Liberty LitChart as a printable PDF.
Mill argues that even the beliefs people hold most dear must remain open to criticism from others because there may always be a “better truth” out there. Although most people will admit that this is a valid point, they still object to debating the topics that they are certain are right. Mill writes that certainty can only be attained through discussion, no matter how uncomfortable. There are also opinions which people believe must be protected for the good of society and for this reason should be protected from criticism because they are useful to society. However, even this—whether an opinion is useful—is an opinion and still requires a fair discussion both for and against its truth. Mill believes that the truth of an opinion is a major part of its usefulness, which is why criticism of an accepted opinion’s usefulness is quickly condemned.
By using the phrase “better truth,” Mill emphasizes the fact that even opinions people cast off have some amount of truth to them, or else they wouldn’t have been very important to anyone. It also implies that there are varying levels of truth, which is confirmed later when he asserts that an opinion might contain a partial but not a whole truth. A “better truth,” then might just be a more comprehensive one than the one previously held.
Themes
Mill continues to address the human impulse to deny others the opportunity to hear an opinion on the grounds that we personally think it’s wrong. He illustrates the problem with this by exploring the argument against freedom of thought when it comes to a belief in God. Mill acknowledges that others might accuse him of saying faith in God is assuming infallibility. Mill retorts that he doesn’t consider “feeling sure of a doctrine” the same thing as assuming infallibility, but making that decision for other people and refusing to let them hear arguments over its truth, morality, or piety is detrimental to society. Prohibiting debates over an opinion’s morality or piety is dangerous to society because of how often they have punished people for immoral opinions or conduct. Such is what happened to the great philosopher Socrates, who was put to death for alleged impiety.
Mill dives straight into a controversial and emotionally charged topic that most people would avoid discussing: religion. This immediately catches the reader’s attention and prepares them to encounter some very unusual opinions for a 19th-century English writer. Mill differentiates between assuming infallibility and “feeling sure of a doctrine.” This phrase is notable because it emphasizes the fact that if one “feel[s] sure” about something then there is room for doubt or open-mindedness to new ideas that one might “feel[]” are better.
Themes
Mill also uses the Crucifixion of Christ (accused of blasphemy) as an example of how governments punish people for their alleged immoral or impious opinions, and how Marcus Aurelius—by all means a just man—persecuted Christians because he feared Christianity would do more harm than good to the world. Many people will say that those who opposed Christianity were right to do so because truth must be able to pass through that kind of persecution. Mill finds fault with this because it implies that those who introduce any new truths should be punished for it. He asserts that people who hold this opinion must believe that there are no more new truths to be discovered.
Mill uses Christ and Marcus Aurelius to make his point, and both examples highlight the fallibility of humanity’s judgment. There is a lot of irony in the fact that Christ—founder of what would become one of the most influential and widespread religions ever—was crucified for blasphemy. With this example, Mill highlights just how much society’s beliefs about someone or something can change.
Themes
Literary Devices
Mill argues that the belief that truth always triumphs over criticism and persecution is false because history is full of instances when truth has been put down and either never resurfaces or is set back hundreds of years. In fact, persecution usually does succeed unless those who believe in a truth are stronger than those who persecute them for it. This is clearly seen in how Christianity continued spreading in the Roman Empire despite persecution. Mill rejects the idea that truth has some mysterious power over error and argues that people are often as enthusiastic about errors as they are about truths. The actual advantage truth has over error is that it frequently reappears in the world until it is finally accepted.
When people put too much faith in the idea that truth will always triumph over human error, they risk losing truth entirely by waiting to see if it withstands criticism instead of learning more about it for themselves. Mill’s ultimate argument here is that people shouldn’t wait to see if a possible truth withstands criticism but should join the discussion of it and decide for themselves.
Themes
Mill acknowledges the argument that, in the modern day, people are no longer put to death for divergent religious opinions, but he also argues that this doesn’t mean society is totally free from legal penalties for it. As an example, Mill brings up a real case in which a man was denied justice against a thief in court because the man said he had no religious belief due to a law which prohibits anyone from presenting evidence if they don’t believe in God. This practice assumes that the oath to tell the truth means nothing without religious belief. Mill considers this rule absurd because it implies all atheists are liars while requiring them to lie about believing in God to assert their rights in court. Furthermore, the law insults actual believers by implying they only tell the truth out of fear of spiritual punishment rather than natural honesty.
Mill points out that there are no longer severe legal punishments for not abiding by prevailing religious beliefs, but he also reminds the reader that this doesn’t necessarily mean people are totally free to believe whatever they want. Actually, society is so accustomed to enforcing accepted beliefs and opinions that they don’t always recognize how discriminatory minor laws can be against nonbelievers, as in the cast of having to take an oath before God.
Themes
Mill writes that this practice is hardly persecution and that many will simply attribute it to the “infirmity of English minds,” which makes them hold on to bad principles even when they no longer really want to practice them. However, Mill worries that persecution on religious grounds will resurface due to a widespread revival of religion, which typically brings with it a “revival of bigotry.” Where there’s already a tendency towards intolerance, it doesn’t take much for people to start actively persecuting those with divergent beliefs. Mill argues that the social stigma attached to people who disown widely held beliefs prevents England from being “a place of mental freedom.” All those who aren’t financially independent rely on society for work, and so they adopt prevailing beliefs because they must be accepted by society in order to get honest work. The upper classes, however, only risk being gossiped about.
Mill describes English minds as “infirm[],” or weak. This means the reason they hold on to bad habits is because they are not mentally capable of the kind of intelligent conversation that breaks the mold and fosters new ideas. The “infirmity of English mind” is also the reason the land doesn’t nurture “mental freedom.” Everyone thinks the same thoughts, and very few are capable of intelligently discussing new ones. Interestingly, a revival of religion brings with it a “revival of bigotry,” meaning hatred or prejudice, which goes against the love and tolerance that most religions preach.
Themes
Mill argues that even though we don’t punish people very severely for holding different opinions, society still hurts itself in mistreating these people. Because of the lack of social tolerance, people hide their opinions entirely or else these opinions circulate through narrow circles and never make their way to the mainstream. In this way, society remains in a state gratifying to those who think it’s unpleasant to punish people and who want prevailing beliefs to go on undisturbed. This creates some level of intellectual social peace but prevents potentially great minds from openly and fearlessly sharing new ideas or beliefs. The rest of society, too, narrow their thoughts to what is socially acceptable and never enlarge their mind through “free and daring speculation on the highest subjects.”
For speculation to be “daring,” it must be somehow different, original, and the person who originates it must be willing to take a risk by sharing it. The “highest objects” Mill references are topics like religion, morality, philosophy, and justice. However, these discussions typically reflect the status quo of the modern day and are therefore dangerous because they may lead people who are unhappy with the way things are to challenge them. This can threaten the supremacy of the “ascendant class” Mill referenced earlier.
Themes
Literary Devices
Some might think it’s good for those with divergent opinions to keep them to themselves, but Mill reminds the reader that this corrodes the minds of the faithful more than the minds of heretics. Mill explains that the faithful will purposely cramp their own minds and refuse to follow any natural train of thought out of fear that they might have a heretical thought. Still others will strive to hide their heretical thoughts and outwardly conform to social expectations. Mill argues that nobody can be a great thinker without following the natural course of their thoughts, and that truth itself has more to gain from having its errors pointed out than by people adhering to it just because it’s the thing to do.
It can be argued that people generally fear social stigma more than legal punishments because, as Mill said earlier, social stigma is more difficult to escape or recover from. Because of this, people begin to fear their own thoughts and would rather suppress any original idea or “daring speculation” out of fear of being stigmatized as a heretic, which would be social suicide.
Themes
In a “general atmosphere of mental slavery,” there may be an occasional great intellect that asserts itself, but society itself will never be intellectually active. When discussions of humanity’s most important subjects are considered closed, mental activity declines until a period—such as the Goethian period in Germany or post-Reformation period in England—when people no longer fear divergent opinions. During these periods, immense intellectual steps are taken that benefit all of humanity. However, another of these periods will never arise unless society openly asserts its mental freedom.
A “general atmosphere of mental slavery” is created when society stigmatizes certain beliefs or trains of thought. Many people feel helpless in the face of their fear of censure, and so they make themselves subservient to prevailing opinions. However, it is a testament to the strength of humanity’s desire for progress and growth that there are periods in which mental activity asserts itself and humanity takes huge steps forward.
Themes
Mill moves on to the second part of his argument and assumes that new opinions prove true instead of false. Mill asserts that even the firmest believers in their opinions will recognize the value of discussing them more fully because otherwise opinions become “a dead dogma” instead of a “living truth.” There are some people who believe individuals should blindly accept a truth without question. While this prevents people from questioning truth, it also makes the truth weak to argument. Even if this weren’t the case, Mill argues that truth held this way devolves into superstition. It’s Mill’s opinion that for one to truly understand the truth, they must know enough about it to defend it in discussion. This isn’t something that can be taught like in math where there’s one right answer—when it comes to opinions, finding truth means understanding and finding balance between conflicting beliefs.
Truth and opinion exist in a grey area where there are no definite answers, unlike in math or science where certain principles can be definitively proven. A “living truth” is one that people actively engage with, either through forming or discussing their own opinions on it. It’s something people internalize and feel deeply, which is different from a “dead dogma” that people passively accept into their lives because custom dictates that they should.
Themes
Mill explains that in topics like religion or morals, there are numerous perspectives from which to view a question, and those discussing it frequently have to work to dispel any appearances that might indicate the truth of a different opinion over their own. People must understand the opposing arguments to a question in order to combat them. If they can’t do that, then they must refrain from making a judgment or else adopt the most popular opinion. Furthermore, a person must hear these arguments from someone who truly believes them, not just from someone who shares their same belief but still knows the opposing side’s arguments. Even many of the world’s most educated people make the mistake of only hearing arguments from people who don’t believe them rather than those who do, and therefore don’t truly understand or know the truth of their opinions or how to defend them.
When people devote their energy to discrediting different opinions in order to discredit their truth, they do themselves a similar wrong as when they try to silence another opinion entirely. Trying to discredit an opinion means one is not open to truly discussing it and has already decided that it’s false instead of remaining open to the possibility of its truth. Mill also reemphasizes the importance of allowing people to express divergent opinions as a means of stimulating conversation that keeps everyone’s mental faculties sharp and useful.
Themes
Mill writes that someone who opposes free discussion would say that it’s not necessary for everyone to know all the reasons why an opinion is true. They would say that it’s enough for there to be some people capable of explaining it and the rest to trust them. Mill points out that even this indicates the need for people to know all objections to a truth have been answered, but it’d be impossible to do this if nobody is free to bring objections up for debate. The Catholic Church addresses this by separating those who are allowed access to all the arguments and texts against their beliefs, and those who must accept belief as truth. In Protestant countries, however, the belief is that everyone must be able to decide what to believe for themselves and so there must be freedom of speech and press.
When people argue that it should be okay for only some people to both know and be able to defend the truth, they are advocating for humanity to do the bare minimum towards bettering itself. When so much of society sits in ignorance of the reasons for their belief in certain opinions, society limits its own average level of mental activity and risks falling into an intellectual decline that would be difficult to recover from. Furthermore, this attitude encourages people to let others think for them instead of embracing their own capacity for critical individual thought.
Themes
Mill also argues that without free discussions about truth, the meaning of the opinion is also lost, degraded to nothing but a few words that cease to convey real, living meaning. This can be seen in the formation of different religions—the early days are characterized by passion and vitality, but if they prevail in being accepted as truth then discussion over it dwindles until people passively accept religion rather than actively experiencing it. Without a need to argue over its truth and fight for it to be accepted by dissentients, believers lose interest in talking about it and no longer question the beliefs of others because they see no need to defend their beliefs. This creates a disconnect between religious principles and inner consciousness, which remains vacant and passive rather than active.
Mill reiterates his belief that opinions can deteriorate into “dead dogmas” when people no longer actively discuss them. This contradicts the belief that truth has some mystical power to stay alive no matter what—it actually loses meaning and dies when people cease talking about it. This highlights the fact that truth, no matter how beneficial, is fragile, and people must take care of it.
Themes
According to Mill, the extent to which doctrines remain in the human mind as little more than dead beliefs can be seen in how most Christians hold their beliefs. Even though all Christians profess to embrace the laws of the New Testament, few are guided by those laws in their personal lives. This is complicated by the fact that most people feel compelled to adhere to social custom, which might be generally in keeping with Christian laws, but not always. Mill asserts that, too often, people give their real allegiance to custom rather than Christian law. While all profess to hold the beliefs passed down in scripture, few believe them enough to routinely act on them. This is because these beliefs hold no real power over ordinary believers, who tend to look to external influences for guidance rather than scripture.
Mill’s argument here touches on how insincere many people are in their beliefs. Simply keeping a belief out of habit or because others expect one to do so isn’t sincere belief. This would imply that people who do this are hypocritical because they don’t truly embrace the opinions and beliefs they expect others to hold and defend. Mill also highlights humanity’s tendency to accept an idea or opinion in theory, but struggle to act on it in real life.
Themes
Mill writes that things were different in the early days of Christianity, the proof of which can be seen in how far and rapidly Christianity spread. In the modern world, Christianity is mostly limited to Europe or European descendants. Even the most adamant believers cling to newer beliefs (like Calvin’s or Knox’s) that they have more in common with rather than the fundamentals. This concept—that once a subject is beyond debate, people generally lose their passion for it—can be applied to other topics. There are truths or bits of knowledge that everyone simply knows, but nobody internalizes until personal experience shines a new light on them. Mill says that this is because some truths can’t be understood until people experience them firsthand. Still, the tendency to stop thinking about something once it’s beyond doubt is the reason for most mistakes.
Mill argues that people are most passionate about opinions or beliefs when they are new and must be defended. This seems to be another argument in favor of keeping discussions about all topics alive and for encouraging those with divergent beliefs to feel free to share them—in arguing over the validity of a belief, a person might remember why it meant so much to them in the beginning. This also reveals humanity’s love of novelty. Even while it might resist change, society gets a thrill from the introduction of new doctrines.
Themes
Literary Devices
To those who question whether unanimous agreement must spell doom for ideas, Mill says that he disagrees. He admits that as society progresses the number of debatable doctrines will slowly decline as people discover the truth. When society reaches this point, it would be beneficial to find teachers who can make compelling arguments against truth for the benefit of learners. Similar systems can be found in Socratic dialogues in which Plato presents opposing and supporting arguments for a topic. However, a student who only learns from books will be ill-prepared for actual debate. It’s far better to learn through discussion, although a student must be on guard against viewing all discussion as an argument rather than a means to learning truth. Instead, Mill believes we should thank and listen to those who are willing to challenge our opinions because they help keep our minds active.
Earlier, Mill said it was important for everyone to hear arguments on both sides of an opinion from people who genuinely believe what they’re saying. He contradicts himself here by saying it’s actually okay to just encourage people who don’t really believe something to argue in favor of if for the sake or argument. This is a noble cause, but could be considered insincere by many.
Themes
Mill highlights another benefit of allowing diversity of opinion: one side of the question is rarely totally true and the other totally false. In fact, usually the accepted belief only holds part of the truth and the opposing belief holds the rest of it. Popular opinions typically hold an exaggerated portion of the truth while heretical ones contain suppressed truths that supporters claim is the whole truth, and the two sides must be taken together to discover what the truth is. Rather than instinctually revolting against new opinions that say popular opinions are totally false, a good judge of human thought and conduct will recognize that both sides of the question are overlooking the partial truths found in each opinion. In fact, they will recognize the value of energetic opposition to popular opinion because it helps draw attention to the partial truth of their doctrines.
Mill sees a group of opinions as a group of half-truths that, when put together the right way by the right people, will reveal a whole truth. This requires a lot of cooperation between people that are also placing themselves in opposition to one another in their opinions. Mill argument here also highlights the benefit of trying to cultivate rationality and reasonableness in people rather than encouraging blind passion. People must be patient and reasonable with one another to discover the whole truth in their two different opinions, after all.
Themes
Mill writes that if a state’s politics includes “a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform,” then it is a sign of good health at least until one or the other is capable of balancing both order and progress at once. Until the differing opinions of each can be expressed and protected in equal measure, one side of the scale will always outweigh the other. This is similar to the discovery of truth, which frequently requires combining opposite opinions to find the whole truth. Unfortunately, few people are impartial enough to do this and the struggle between the two sides continues. Whatever opinion is accepted reflects the neglected needs of society at that time. This is why it’s important to listen to dissent from popular opinion because “truth would lose something by […] silence.”
Mill’s opinion that political environments benefit from having two opposing parties reflects his belief that in the rest of society there should be people who oppose prevailing opinion, and that these two sides should work together to find common ground and truth. Mill has already established that truth loses meaning when people no longer discuss it and simply adhere to it as a custom.
Themes
Mill responds to the assertion that this concept can’t apply to Christianity-based morality—which is supposed to be the whole and absolute truth—by questioning what exactly is meant by Christian morality. Mill writes that if it’s the morality of the New Testament, then there’s a problem because that book builds off a preexisting morality. One would have to look for morality in the Old Testament, which Mill asserts is actually “intended for a barbarous people.” Ultimately, Mill asserts that Christian morality should actually be called “theological” morality, as it predates Christianity. Humanity does owe a lot to the gradual formation of modern Christian morality for helping create successful societies, but Mill still believes it’s incomplete and describes it as a reaction against pagan beliefs. Furthermore, it is more negative than positive in that there are far more rules for what people should not do rather than what they should.
If the New Testament actually reflects the cooperation of an established morality with a new one, then it is the perfect example of the good that can come out of cooperation and a willingness to accept certain parts of a differing opinion. Mill believes the morality of the Old Testament is better suited to “a barbarous people.” In other words, it’s better for people who aren’t civilized, just as he believes despotism is beneficial to “barbarous” cultures and civilizations.
Themes
Furthermore, Christianity idealizes “passive obedience” and encourages selfishness by claiming the fear of hell and hope of heaven should be a person’s primary motive in their actions. Mill also says it disconnects people from positive interest in their peers unless there are self-interested reasons in helping them. Indeed, any sense of duty to society and government comes from ancient Greek or Roman sources, not Christian ones. Still, Mill says that he doesn’t consider Christian morality wholly incompatible with a comprehensive morality but believes that it was intended to be only part of the whole truth, making it useless to look to Christianity for comprehensive morality. Mill fears that exclusively teaching religious morality instead of including secular morality does society a great wrong by encouraging servility to a higher will, which prevents a person from becoming truly good. Because of this, it’s better for some “other ethics” to coexist alongside Christian ones.
Mill views “passive obedience” as another one of society’s ills. It results in the death of meaning and the decay of truth, which is also why Christian ideals by themselves are an incomplete form of morality. On the other hand, if people are too active in forming new opinions, then eventually they might begin debating the usefulness of Christianity (an incomplete doctrine), which would be a huge blow to the accepted order of things. Instead, Mill encourages readers to find the use of secular morality instead of condemning it for not being Christian.
Themes
Mill argues that this doesn’t mean people should ignore the parts of the truth that exist within Christianity as they begin to accept the parts of the truth that exist outside of it. Instead, people should fight against the tendency to claim a partial truth as the whole truth, and any unjust behavior on this score should be patiently tolerated. Furthermore, Mill believes Christians should remember that some of the most valuable modern morals came from the teachings of people who knew and rejected Christianity. Even this will not prevent sectarianism because there will always be people who insist their opinions are the whole truth. However, suppressing a partial truth is worse than any conflict between parts of the truth because it creates prejudice, and so both sides of the question must be free to share their opinions and audiences should be free to judge which is best for themselves.
Mill doesn’t limit his pleas for cooperation and toleration from Christians, but from non-Christians, too. This highlights how both sides tend to be closed-minded towards the other because it’s such a polarizing topic. Each side must develop enough tolerance and reasonableness to recognize the good in the other side if they are ever going to determine what the partial truths of each side can contribute to each other .
Themes
Mill summarizes his argument in favor of freedom of opinion, saying it has four distinct grounds: first, that opinions must not be silenced because they might be true and because silencing them implies infallibility; second, the suppressed opinion might contain a partial truth that, combined with prevailing opinion, could form a whole truth; third, that even if an opinion is accepted as a whole truth it will languish and die if people stop voicing differing opinions on it; finally, without discussion, the meaning of truth will be lost or transformed into a mere profession that few people truly internalize and benefit from. To those who claim there should be limits placed on these discussions to keep them fair, Mill says this is impossible because people tend to take offense to any powerful argument against their opinions and accuse the other of being unreasonable.
Once again, Mill describes how truth and meaning tend to lose their worth when people don’t talk about them. Furthermore, Mill believes that when people become passionate about a subject because the arguments are powerful, it is a good rather than a bad thing. Passion, after all, is what drives opinions forward when they are first conceived, so these feelings should be encouraged for as long as possible.
Themes
Mill does admit that there are conditions in which a person might be censured for their manner of sharing opinions, but it’s hard to determine what those conditions are. It’s also difficult to impose limitations on discussions to keep both sides—not just the side which opposes the prevailing opinions—from becoming unreasonable, as many people argue there should be. The worst thing society can do is stigmatize those who don’t share prevailing opinions, particularly because people with unpopular opinions are already at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the law has no right to restrain discussions on opinions, but opinion itself should condemn those who are malicious in sharing their opinions and praise those who can keep a level head in heated discussions. This is what Mill considers the “morality of public discussion,” and he’s comforted by the belief that most people adhere or at least strive to adhere to it.
This is one of the instances when Mill recognizes the usefulness of public opinion in its capacity to condemn and penalize people for wrongdoing that is not technically against the law. This is particularly true because the power of the government over discussion should be very, very limited since discussion, speech, and press are all major elements of individual liberty.
Themes
