J.S. Mill's boundaries of freedom of expression: a critique

Cohen-Almagor, Raphael

Abstract

The essay opens with some background information about the period in which JS Mill wrote. The discussion revolves around the concept of blasphemy which Mill considered to be highly problematic. Tagging unpopular views as “blasphemous” amounted to abuse of governmental powers and infringed on the basic liberties of the out-of-favour speakers. The discussion on blasphemy sets the scene to the understanding of Mill’s concerns, his priorities and consequently his emphasis on the widest possible liberty of expression. Section II presents the Millian principles that are pertinent to his philosophy of free speech: liberty and truth. Section III analyzes Mill’s very limited boundaries to freedom of expression, asserting that the consequentialist reasoning had led Mill to ignore present tangible harm. It is argued that democracy is required to develop protective mechanisms against harm-facilitating speech.

Citation

Cohen-Almagor, R. (2017). J.S. Mill's boundaries of freedom of expression: a critique. Philosophy : the journal of the British Institute of Philosophical Studies, 92(4), 565-596. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819117000213

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Apr 1, 2016
• Online Publication Date: Jun 6, 2017
• Publication Date: 2017-10
• Deposit Date: May 24, 2017
• Publicly Available Date: Jun 6, 2017
• Journal: Philosophy
• Print ISSN: 0031-8191
• Electronic ISSN: 1469-817X
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 92
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 565-596
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819117000213
• Keywords: Blasphemy, Freedom of expression, Harm Principle, Incitement, J.S. Mill, Religion
• Public URL: https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/451666
• Publisher URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/js-mills-boundaries-of-freedom-of-expression-a-critique/6B0C67F2EA2DAE08B6C08D5FD83AC1BB
• Additional Information: License: Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2017