Mill False Expression

goes so far as to argue that a false opinion contributes to the truth. A false expression should be permitted because it gives us reason to justify what we take to be the truth, so that such truths do not set into accepted dogma and prejudice that is passively inherited generation to generation. If so, these ideas, no matter how good, will not flourish, for in our passive acceptance of them, we will have failed to understand and appreciate them. Whatever way Mill's objector may argue, Mill reasons that any coercion to supress expression will suppress the truth. Mill is committed to the belief that the truth will prevail in the marketplace of ideas, which will thrive only when people can engage in free discussion. The truth, then, depends on
Never, however, is an expression itself harm-causing, according to Mill. It is the context in which something is expressed. This brings us to Mill's distinction between offensive and harm-causing expression. For Mill, an offence merely displeases us whereas a harm-causing expression is something that would injure the rights of someone else. Harm-causing expression will threaten effected individuals' ability to pursue what they believe is the best way of life, which is why Mill justifies interference with such acts of expression. In contrast, an offensive act of expression will challenge the offended individual, compelling her to re-evaluate what she considers to be the truth of a matter, which Mill argues would serve the offended individual’s good. Moreover, Mill encourages us to argue, entreat, and remonstrate with people that we find disagreeable. Disagreement will promote the truth and allow people to best decide on how to live their
If we are of the opinion that corn-dealers starve the poor by keeping their goods' prices high for their personal gain, by Mill we are justified in expressing our opinion, no matter how distasteful. Where an expression may crossover into harm-causing territory is when this opinion is expressed to the poor that suffer as a result of the corn-dealers' actions because this act of expression will incite violence among the poor, encouraging them to attack the corn-dealer. Because this harms the rights of the corn-dealer to be safe from violence, the harm principle would allow us to interfere with the expression of the unfavorable opinion of the corn-dealers and the corn-dealer is justified in interfering out of self-protection. In this example, Mill argues that non-inciting expression be always tolerated and that inciting expression be interfered with -- both the tolerance and interference justified under the harm principle. Additionally, if we decide that interference with the harm will prevent further harm, then we may interfere with an act that is harming