The Problem of Liberty

What justification can there be for imposing limits on anyone's liberty?

As Locke and Jefferson had realized, liberty is a precious thing ,a God-given right. Mill realized this, but he also knew that sometimes it is necessary for a society to impose limits on that liberty. He maintained, however, that the only reason we might ever be justified in interfering with the liberty of anyone, is self-protection.

For example, in relation to freedom of speech, we can never be sure that some opinion we are trying to stifle is really false. "And," Mill says, "if we were sure, stifling it would be evil still."

Besides that, he argues, a society which silenced and suppressed individual differences and "eccentricities" would result in stagnation, and there would be the danger of "democratic tyranny" in which the majority would oppress the minority.

Suppose, for example, that the majority of us decided that the opinions of Jerry Falwell were mistaken and dangerous, and so we in the majority wrote up and passed a bill condemning and~ prohibiting his opinions. This would clearly be wrong, on Mill's view, unless we could show that his opinions directly threatened our safety and well-being. For even if Falwell's opinions are utterly wrong, still he and his followers have a right to maintain them. And a society is better off where there are differences of opinion than where there is a massive, stagnant uniformity maintained by the pressure of public opinion.

What would Mill say about the liberty of, say, Larry Flynt of Hustler magazine to publish insulting jokes and degrading comments about Jerry Falwell?

Bibliography

Bentham, Jeremy and John Stuart Mill. The Utilitarians, Garden City, New York, Anchor Books, 1973 (see "On Liberty"). S

chneewind, J.B. "John Stuart Mill," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3, pp. 314-323.

Smart, J.J.C., "Utilitarianism," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 8, pp. 206-212.