John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

Freedom of Speech is one of the most quintessential and fundamental right of any Liberal Democratic society. Freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought, is the litmus test to determine if a nation, country or society is truly free. This right is the bedrock for which a free society can operate. This right has been defended and protected by many different institutions around the world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the United Nations in 1948, states in article 19 that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference”. In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of speech is expressed in Section 2(b) as “a freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”. There have also
Though these advocates were exceptional, the man the most influential in defining free speech and its importance is John Stuart Mill and his essay “On Liberty”. “On Liberty” proposes that for freedom to properly flourish, it must be free in all aspects, with almost no limitations from any source, either government or individuals. Although written in 1859, Mill’s opinion is still relevant and can be applied to current political controversies and events in Canada such as the infamous Human Rights Complaints against Maclean’s Magazine. Thus, “On Liberty”, a treatise that espoused a doctrine of almost unrestricted speech and action, is still applicable to modern political events. Furthermore, it provides an almost perfect analysis of free speech and the proper limits on
It is from the hottest fires that one gets the hardest steel, and the steel of truth, Mill argues, is forged from the fire of criticism from false and different opinions. J.S. Mill says that when the truth is able to collide against falsehoods, one is able to get a “clearer perception and livelier impression of truth”. Also, he states that if society makes it illegal or immoral for someone to incorrectly argue against an accepted belief, the truth becomes a dead dogma, unable to stand up to even superficial challenges against it. As well, it leads to apathy towards that belief, even though it is widely accepted. Moreover, John Stuart Mill would find the idea of a government censuring political thought reprehensible. Though some might argue that “it is not conscientiousness, but cowardice … to allow doctrines which they honestly think dangerous to the welfare of mankind”, such as hate speech, to be spoken, Mill claims that this will give a fallible government too much power to determine what is a dangerous doctrine and what is legitimate belief, thus limiting free