The Rise and Decline of John Stuart Mill

It would seem to be a good time to read (or reread) John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.

First though, we have to overcome the idea that even talking about whether free speech is a good idea is permissible.  You see, if you are going to seriously talk about free speech, then you can’t just talk about whether people should be allowed to say things you like.  You have to talk about whether people should be allowed to say things you dislike.  Things you intensely dislike.  Things you think are wrong.  Things you think are morally wrong. 

Enter Mill:

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. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. 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.

That is bracing stuff.  That is the sort of thing that you hear and you want to cheer and say “Atta boy, Johnny!”

But, alas, it’s not so easy.  Mill loves the idea of liberty to be sure.  But, he also insists there are limits on my liberty.  I have the liberty to swing my hand through the air if I want to do so.  Well, I have that liberty up until my hand comes into contact with your head.

[The] sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

If you ask an undergrad these days what are the limits to liberty, they all cite Mill.  Well, technically most of them just cite the principle that my liberties end when they infringe or your liberties.  Most of them have never actually read Mill.

At one level, it is hard to argue with Mill on the end result.  I surely don’t have the right to sock you in the face so hard that you stay plastered. (Bonus points if you get the reference without Google.)

But, does this also apply to speech?  Suppose you say something that hurts me.  Does your right of free speech end when it causes me pain?

Mill’s answer about liberty is fundamentally utilitarian.  He says my liberty ends when it infringes on yours. But, then the canonical example is not sufficient. If I hit you, I am not depriving you of liberty to do anything.  We also have to add that you have the liberty to not be hurt by my actions. 

Consider this: I would be hurt if you hit me in the face.  I would also be hurt if you tell me the Oakland Raiders are losers.  Suppose the second hurts me more than the first.  In Mill’s formulation, if the first is prohibited, why isn’t the second?

And from that line of reasoning comes speech codes and the attack on free speech.  It looked like Mill was giving us grounds for a robust argument in favor of free speech, but in the end, he may very well have undermined his own argument.

So, if we are going to still have free speech, then we really need to build the argument for it on grounds other than Mill’s shifting sand.  Natural Law gives firmer ground, but it has gone so far out of fashion, it is a tough sell today.  That doesn’t mean it is wrong; it just means that we should not expect any sudden change in the attack on free speech.  It will take some time to build up a more robust defense of free speech which is persuasive in the modern world. 

Another way of saying the same thing, there is not currently a close race between the opponents of free speech and the defenders of free speech over the future of the academy.  The opponents are winning.  As the general climate of opinion on a campus turns against free speech, then it gets harder for the lonely individual to assert the right to say anything the individual wants to say.  As the social pressures to conform mounts, it gets even more difficult.

The freedom to say what you believe is not guaranteed.  If you think it is important, then you need to defend it.  And that means you need to defend the right to speech by the very people with whom you disagree most.