In the essay "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill explores the question of whether society has the right to suppress an individual's expression and opinions. Mill states: “If all mankind but one were of the same opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” ( Mill, 1869). Mill believes that such use of power is unconstitutional and that individuals should be free to express any opinions they wish, even if those opinions may be perceived as controversial or ridiculous. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay John Stuart Mill recognized that society tends to encourage conformity both through government-enforced laws and social pressure. This is a key part in his argument since if a person's opinion does not harm someone in any way, shape or form, they have no reason to silence these harmless opinions of another. Mill's first argument in defense of free speech is that we simply cannot always know whether the opinion we are trying to suppress is wrong. Throughout history, unpopular or heretical views have been proven to be true or at least a progression to a greater truth. A notable example would be Charles Darwin's theory of evolution which challenged traditional beliefs established by the Catholic church about how we were created. This puts into perspective the fact that we cannot always know whether a controversial view is right or wrong until it is brought to the light of discussion and debate. Mill states: "To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same as absolute certainty. All silence on discussion is an assumption of infallibility." (Mill, 1869). Mill is saying that the idea that someone is justified in silencing an opinion because they believe their position is correct presupposes that the person is incapable of making mistakes. If violence is not instigated, we are not justified in suppressing unpopular ideas and we have no right to decide for other people what they may or may not be exposed to. Mill addresses some possible criticisms such as the idea that the government has a duty to suppress certain ideas that are harmful to the well-being of society, this is where hate speech comes into play. Mill argued that this follows from the supposed infallibility of judgment. For example, what exactly is the appropriate definition of hate speech to include in law, and what is the right level of repression of free speech? Mill thought there was no line to be drawn in any kind of speech. He did not think that there should be no limits to the expression and spread of ideas, but he believed that there should be a line called to action at one point. Mill (1869) writes: An opinion that corn dealers are starving the poor, or that private property is theft, should not be molested when merely spread through the press, but may justly incur punishment if uttered orally to an excited crowd gathered in front of a grain dealer's house, or when distributed among the same crowd in the form of a sign. Mill makes it clear that there is a clear difference between someone writing an opinion piece about corn traders and how they are starving the poor, and that same person standing in front of a group of angry poor people and telling them to grab their pitchforks. One expresses an opinion, no matter how wrong orignorant may be, and the other is a call to immediate action with the intent to cause harm. Restricting speech has nothing to do with the words or ideas expressed, but more to do with the immediate likelihood of physical violence. In my opinion, the line drawn by Mill is consistent with his view that the law should intervene only in situations where it is necessary to protect people from harm. It tends to limit discourse and encourage the very reactionary movements it seeks to prevent. Another criticism Mill faces is that since we no longer put people to death for controversial ideas, the truth can never truly be erased. Today with the Internet we can find almost anything we want about anything. This might be a reason to suggest that suppressing free speech is pointless, so why even try in the first place? Mill also recognized that, although we no longer put people to death for heretical opinions, legal punishments and social pressure, in general, have the effect of stifling words. Contacting someone's employer to get them fired, doxing someone's private and public information shaming people on social media over differences of opinion can create a world where people think twice before expressing any ideas . I think we have seen the rise of this reactionary populism where for a long time those with liberal views have encouraged an environment of ironic intolerance towards any ideas outside their own beliefs, which far from changing opinions simply stifled voices for the sake of public shame by causing a dogmatic intellectual environment. I think what we're seeing now with the rise of right-wing populism is that a lot of the ironic intolerance of some people on the left has encouraged people with different views to no longer talk about it openly because of this culture of intellectual intolerance . You can't change someone's mind if you don't know where they stand on an issue. So by censoring the opinions of minorities, the majority is creating an environment where only certain ideas are valid, which is not right. Mill's second argument is that if an idea is not questioned people will not fully understand why they believe in that idea, even if the opinion is true. This is important because if we don't know why we believe what we believe, then we are just as likely to believe bad ideas as good ones. Mill's observation that faith becomes a dead dogma when left unchallenged is important. This is because a false belief that goes unchallenged is just as likely to become dead dogma as a true belief and so the only way to keep the truth alive is to subject it to challenge. All it takes is for a new idea or piece of evidence to completely change what was previously perceived as true. The main criticism of this argument is that if someone is taught the fundamentals of a similar belief, such as being taught basic mathematics before learning complex equations, they are not simply reciting dogma, but understanding why they believe what they believe . Mill's defense is that, unlike mathematical equations which are true or false, ideas are more complex than that. We should understand opposing points of view as well as our own points of view, so that we can prove that our opinions are true with absolute certainty. This makes it more evident that the majority should not silence the opinions of a minority if they are not willing to address topics that challenge their beliefs. Mill's third argument is that the meaning behind a belief can go.