The episode of the TVO’s The Agenda show watched in class is another real life situation that is related to On Liberty. At the beginning of the episode, I recall the targeted group not wanting to discuss the “Islamophobic” topic with Mark Steyn. This goes back to the point of free discussion that Mills continuously speaks of. This made them look as if they were not sure of their own side of the debate. Mark Steyn, on the other hand, was ready to refute the objections and even suggested they came on stage. Mill says that “if it is not fully frequently…discussed it will be held as a dead dogma” (Mill 29). If Mill had a say in this issue he would view this in two ways. Firstly, Mill talks about free speech and how people can speak however they …show more content…
MacLean publishing “America Alone” shares the views with the public. Mill says, “it is the duty of the government and of individuals to form the truest opinions they can…never impose them on others unless they are quite sure of being right” (Mill 16) and he also mentions that the government should only intervene when the opinion violates “ a distinct and assign- able obligation to any other person or persons” (Mill 68). These are two different views of Mills in this situation. One issue here is whether the government should intervene to force MacLean’s to publish an opinion it does not want to publish. Looking at this from Mill’s point of view I believe he will not support the government intervention in this case. The reason why is because Mill supports free discussion when it comes to opinions, but MacLean has the right to publish the book. The book does have views that affect the feelings of people but it does not harm the obligations of the Muslims so this is not the place of the government. Due to On Liberty, MacLean has the authority when it comes to what is being published from the company. If MacLean believes opponent’s side of the story should be published then MacLean can do that. Besides, the opponents had the chance to speak on The Agenda and the government intervening in the situation does not make their stories more heard than it already is. It would have been a …show more content…
The world has evolved since Mill’s time and a lot of things have changed. Things were not as easy and free now compared to the 1800’s. I believe the world evolving is a step-to-step motion. Before things are generally accepted in a society it takes a while. For example, homosexuality, women voting and sex discrimination, etc., all were not accepted immediately but people had to challenge the government and also the popular views. A lot of people might not agree with the way Mark Steyn expressed his opinion, but that is the point. A lot of people are not going to agree with your opinion because humans have different opinions and they think and act differently. The reason why Mill suggests that you should have the right to hold your opinion because it is yours and if you are not harming anyone then nothing restricts you from expressing