- JS Mill On Liberty, Marketplace of Ideas - clix
John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century English philosopher and political theorist often tied to utilitarianism, employs the metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas” to argue for free speech.
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty
In his 1859 essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that free speech is crucial to the pursuit of truth, because discussion of different opinions serves to challenge and clarify beliefs:
“Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; […] there must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it” (23).
Mill and the Marketplace of Ideas
Every opinion, according to Mill, has worth; if it is not true (something one can never be sure of), it serves to further illuminate and clarify the truth.
Mill emphasizes that minority opinions cannot be disregarded, no matter how unpopular they might be, or how absurd they might seem.
Mill’s philosophy of speech can be described as a “marketplace of ideas”: as in an economic free market, the competition of ideas within an unrestricted public discourse allows the truth to prevail.
Role of the Government in the Marketplace of Ideas: Limiting Free Speech
However, just as the government must sometimes interfere with the economic free market to correct a distortion, the marketplace of ideas may not always function perfectly.
Mill, distinguishing between self-regarding and other-regarding acts, argues that the scope of government interference should be limited to other-regarding acts:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. […] Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (13)
Self-Regarding and Other-Regarding Acts in American Law
Much of American law is established from these principles; for example, adults are free to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol excessively, even if it is considered immoral or is dangerous to their health.
Criminalizing speech solely on the basis of immorality violates these principles. But is there any overriding “other-regarding” externality to certain types of speech?
Mill admits that “even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act” (56).
For example, he explains, inciting a mob to violence outside a corn-dealer’s house should not be protected, while a negative opinion about corn-dealers should be allowed to be printed. What about hate speech or obscenity?
Perhaps being offended cannot count as true injury. However, it seems that hate speech is often intended to be an other-regarding act, whereas much obscenity is intended for private consumption.
Related Articles
Sources
John Stuart Mill, ‘On Liberty’ and Other Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, 1998.
Rebekah Richards - Rebekah Richards has published fiction and nonfiction in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Brandeis Law Journal, Where the Children Play, ...
