John Stuart Mill The Harm Principle

One of the core principles of the US Constitution is the freedom of speech. Something so ingrained in the country that it is often an afterthought of many Americans. John Stuart Mill believes that freedom of expression and speech is a necessity for humans to advance and evolve. Mill justifies this absolute freedom by stating that the mistakes and choices made by the person leads to progress and the development of your individual self, a theory known as the harm principle. Using the idea of the harm principle, Mill claims that the only limit that should be placed on expression is if it leads to the harms of others it is not to be infringed upon if it only harms the individual. James Madison agreed with many of the concept of Mill’s free speech,

No one person is infallible, therefore they should not be punished for simply believing or saying something that may conflict with someone else’s view so long as it doesn't harm that person. Also, having opposing viewpoints allows for weaknesses to be addressed in agreements as a way to create compromise. Freedom of speech for Mill also allows for the putting away of dead dogma, or ideas that serve no public benefit and seeks to constrain freedom. The idea of freedom of speech allows for all ideas, popular and unpopular, to have a voice. Although some speech may offend some people, this is outweighed by the need for people to make mistakes and their own personal choices in order for society to truly be free. However, a limit can be placed when speech is transferred into action and used to harm others not just the

His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” (P.9). The need for humans to progress morally comes down to the ability for that individual to have freedom over their thoughts and expressions. However, Mill argues that this can be infringed upon she the scope of words and actions of one individual begins to interfere with the rights of others. It must contain three elements, one it must be other-regarding meaning that the harm must only apply to others and not yourself. Second, there needs to be tangibility that comes not just from words, but from actions. Third, it must be direct meaning it has a specific result attached to it. An example of a limit on free speech is the idea of not being able to yell fire in a crowded area. The speech turns into action as it creates a sense of danger and hysteria that can lead to harm on the public. Speech such as that only to create panic and mayhem, not contribute positively to the public good. There are rare instances where the right of free speech can be infringed upon when it seeks to harm the good of the community and not just limited to the individual holding those