Silencing the already Silenced Voices.

For much of the 19th century, the United States was involved in a struggle over a human right more significant than the freedom of press – the freedom of every individual from slavery. While America remained preoccupied by its civil war, John Stuart Mill worked on his conception of freedom of expression, publishing On Liberty, in 1859. Focussing on civil rights, such as, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, it motioned towards due process and the right to a fair trial, the entitlement to own property and respect of individual privacy. These social responsibilities and rights are often taken as subjective norms, as well as permeated normality.

The scope of Mills essay is subjected upon Social Liberty and the ability that governments can legitimately reserve power over society and the individual. Mill predicts that this question will become increasingly important because some humans have entered a more civilized stage of development, which presents “new conditions” under which issues of individual liberty must be addressed.

Concordantly, the concept of liberty is attributed to ancient Greece, Rome and England, whereby liberty implied “protection against the tyranny of political rulers,” and rulers and subjects were often thought to have a necessarily antagonistic relationship. The leader did not govern by the will of his people, and while his power was seen as necessary, it was also considered dangerous.

Mill writes that eventually men progress to a point where they want their leaders to be their servants, and to reflect their interests and will. It was thought that it was not necessary to limit this new kind of ruler’s power, because he was accountable to the people, and there was no fear of the people tyrannizing themselves. However, when an actual democratic republic developed, being America, the conception that people do not rule themselves became apparent. Rather, the people with power exercise it over those without power. In particular, a majority may consciously try to oppress a minority. Mill writes that this concept of a tyranny of the majority has come to be accepted by major thinkers. Mill, however, argues that society can also tyrannize without using political means. Rather, the power of public opinion can be more stifling to individuality and dissent than any law could be. Therefore, he writes that there must also be protection for people against the prevailing public opinions, and the tendency of society to impose its values on others.

Nevertheless, when, where and how is it legitimate to limit public opinion’s sway over individual independence. In due to regard, there has been very little consensus among nations about the answer to this question, and people tend to be very complacent about their own customs in dealing with dissent. People tend to believe that having strong feelings on a subject tends to make having reasons for that belief unnecessary, failing to realize that without reasons their beliefs are mere preferences, often reflecting self-interest. Additionally, on the occasions when individuals do question the imposition of public opinion on social standards, they are usually questioning what things society should like or dislike, not the more general question of whether society’s preferences should be imposed on others.

Mill ideology, On Liberty, is that if a person causes harm to others actively or inactively, it is appropriate for society to condemn him legally or through general disapprobation. Individuals can even be compelled to do good for other people, such as to save someone’s life, because to do otherwise would be to cause evil to another person. In contrast, society only has an indirect interest in what a person does to himself or to other freely consenting people. In comparison, the freedom of expression to be without gratis and not to cause detriment is also a fundamental premise to Mills argument.

1. If an opinion contains truth and the opinion is silenced, the truth is lost.

2. Even if there is only a particle of truth in a wrong opinion, the truth is still lost if the opinion is silenced.

3. Even if a popular accepted opinion is the truth, people will hold onto that truth as a mere prejudice unless that are forced to articulate a defence to it.

4. Even broadly held opinions lose there currency and impact unless it they are challenged from time to time.

In this regard, it seems reasonable for a revised version of liberty to be seen as respecting the individual right of freedom, as long as no detriment is encountered by opposing parties. An analogy of this concept would be that liberty stops before a fist hits an individual, and vice versa. Not in the concept that one cannot disadvantage, disregard or be disempowered another, but rather, that freedom to exercise individual rights should only be stopped in the rarest instance of great harm to another.

There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past. If you go to one demonstration and then go home, that’s something, but the people in power can live with that. What they can’t live with is sustained pressure that keeps building, organisations that keep doing things, people that keep learning lessons from the last time and doing it better the next time.

- Noam Chomsky