Thamrappally

Jacob Thamarappally

Professor Kranti Saran

Introduction to Philosophy

3 May 2019

The Role of Freedom of Speech in the Pursuit of Truth

Abstract:

Mill’s justification for the freedom of speech is based on the assumption that a diversity of

opinions and their free discussion will lead to a “marketplace of ideas”. This, over time will

foster the discovery of truth, and will weed out falsehoods which in turn will lead to better

individual and social decisions. I object that while free discussion might be fruitful in a well

regulated space such as a formal debate, in the public sphere there is no evidence to suggest

that freedom of speech leads to the discovery of truth. On the contrary, in many instances,

unregulated speech leads to the dissemination of untruths that does more harm than good to

society. One might respond to my objection by arguing that if free discussion in the public

domain is to permitted only in a regulated manner, how can we be certain about the wisdom

of the people deciding what is and isn’t permitted? I reply that this paper is not advocating

the regulation of speech in the public domain. Rather, this paper contends Mill’s justification

for free speech as a means of discovering the truth, showing that there is no empirical

evidence to back this claim.

 Thamrappally

Freedom of speech is one of the most significant fundamental rights that citizens of

democracy enjoy. Freedom of speech is also one of the core tenets of Liberalism, which is the

dominant political theory of a large portion of the developed world. However, the limits to

this freedom have often come into question. John Stuart Mill in his seminal work, On Liberty

puts out an argument for the freedom of speech that has served as a starting point for most

liberal democracies. The basic gist of his argument can be rather succinctly extracted from

this passage from On Liberty.

“..the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human

race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still

more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of

exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer

perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.”

The implications of Mill‟s argument are that freedom of speech and expression should

operate in a largely unregulated fashion. Regulation should occur only when it can be

justified that the speech that is being regulated will cause direct harm to others (Mill 9).

However, there are certain limitations to Mill‟s idea of freedom. In this paper, I object to

Mill‟s justification of freedom of speech in the public sphere by arguing that while free

discussion might be fruitful in a well-regulated space such as a formal debate, in the public

sphere, there is no evidence to suggest that freedom of speech leads to the discovery of truth.

On the contrary, in many instances, unregulated speech leads to the dissemination of untruths

that does more harm than good to society.

In On Liberty, Mill provides two fundamental arguments as to why he believes that freedom

of speech must be upheld. First, he believes that the freedom of speech must be upheld
 Thamrappally

because it, over time, will help weed out bad ideas and well as false propositions. According

to Mill, freedom of speech will allow for a “marketplace of ideas” that will present society

with a number of competing hypotheses for what is true (Mill 20). Many times, these

hypotheses will even be conflicting with one and other. Ultimately a particular hypothesis

prevails and society takes up this hypothesis as truth. We mainly accept a particular

hypothesis because we have not seen evidence that it is false. Freedom of speech is crucial

because without it we would not be able to prove that a particular hypothesis is false and it is

much more likely that this false hypothesis would remain unexposed and sometimes even

accepted by society as truth. Thus Mill argues that if we allow this marketplace of ideas to

play out, without much interference, the truth will eventually win out and society will be

better off as a result of this (Mill 20). It is important to note, however, that the ideas of

absolute truth and falsity are not endorsed by Mill. His ideas of these terms are a little more

nuanced. A hypothesis may be considered as “true” if it is consistent with a given set of facts

that are more or less socially accepted. Similarly, a hypothesis is considered “false” if it is

inconsistent with these facts. However, these facts themselves are subject to this very same

truth and falsity stipulations. This is why he argues that many theories that are accepted as

true in society may, at any moment be false. The truth and falsity of these facts are

conditioned on the information that we have at the moment, thus it is always possible that a

hypothesis is proven false because at the time of its conception, the truth was simply out of its

reach. Thus free speech is essential to foster the creation of competing hypotheses which

gives society the opportunity to choose the one that is the best description of their world.

The second reason for the freedom of speech deals with the censoring of false expressions.

He argues that if we censor false expressions, then our beliefs will be “held as a dead

dogma[s], not the living truth[s]”. By this, he means that only by hearing out even patently

false ideas will we have a clearer and livelier understanding of the truth. Mill argues that
 Thamrappally

there are many beliefs and points of view that can only be properly appreciated by

systematically engaging with the contrary point of view (Mill 25). For instance, the

existence/non-existence of God as traditionally conceived is a point of view that can only be

fully understood by looking at two opposing ends of a belief. In Mill‟s ideal world, even if

opponents to important truths did not exist, it is necessary for society to imagine them, and

supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil‟s advocate can conjure

up.

However, it is important to note that Mill does not argue that truth ideas will triumph over

false ones in all cases. He accepts that there are blatant falsehoods that humanity has been

passing down from generation on end. He points to the numerous historical instances wherein

the truth had been suppressed by the majority- From Luther to Arnold of Brescia. Mill does

not argue that the truth, in the abstract sense has any inherent power on its own. He fully

admits that humans have sought truth and falsity with equal propensity. However, he believes

that the freedom of speech will allow for the truth to eventually prevail- even if it gets struck

down multiple times in the process. This according to Mill is one of the great advantages of

free speech (Mill 22).

It is with this consequentialist justification of the freedom of speech on which I primarily

disagree with Mill. In the following paragraphs I will argue why I believe that while free

discussion might be fruitful in a well-regulated space such as a formal debate, in the public

sphere, there is no evidence to suggest that freedom of speech leads to the discovery of truth.

On the contrary, in many instances, unregulated speech leads to the dissemination of untruths

that does more harm than good to society. It is important to consider that I am not arguing

against the freedom of speech in the public realm. What I do have a contention with, is Mill‟s

justification of this freedom. This Millian utopia of a “marketplace place of ideas” which
 Thamrappally

when left unregulated will drive out any false opinions and in which truth will ultimately

purvey is quite unrealistic and has been proved wrong by history on multiple occasions.

Mill‟s notion of a “marketplace” presupposes a particular disposition of its consumers- that

they, as a general rule of thumb will play by the same rules. However, it has been observed

that this is clearly not how this plays out in reality. In an ideal scenario, public discourse

would take place through an exchange of responses, in which one party lays out their

arguments and the other party responds with their own arguments until the truth ultimately

prevails. In reality however, public speech is often used to marginalize certain groups of

people, purport alternative histories, raise fears and heighten prejudice. Often the language

employed in this kind of speech is carefully designed to appeal directly to the sentiments of

the listener, rather than to have logical meaning. This kind of speech is particularly effective

when a society is divided- either ethnically or morally. In such a society employers of public

speech can effectively tap into the high levels of confirmation bias of the audience,

manipulating them in such a way that goes against the very principles for which Mill stands.

Attempting to counter such propaganda with reason and facts is generally futile.

When we give each and every opinion equal consideration in the public sphere, it allows for

crazy conspiracy theories which are not founded on the basis of any facts to share the same

platform as well-reasoned fact-based positions. It becomes quite obvious that these two kinds

of speech are not playing by the same rules, yet in many cases, they are given similar

coverage. This may also lead to the public perception of these two kinds of speech as equal-

when in reality they are clearly not. Furthermore, in many instances of public discourse,

disagreement does not come from the actual topic of discussion, but from the presuppositions

of the world on which the two parties vary. For example, in the debate over the theory of

evolution, the fundamental presuppositions of the world are vastly different for people on the

opposing sides of the debate. In this particular example, no model of origin has been
 Thamrappally

established beyond any reasonable doubt (hence the use of the phrase “theory” of evolution).

Creationists look at this matter from a religious worldview and base their faith on various

religious texts. People who subscribe to the theory of evolution are also doing so by faith.

However, this “faith” is not based on a religious premise; rather it is based upon empirical

observation and logic. Thus any debate between these two groups would not prove fruitful, as

the fundamental understanding of the topic of debate is different for both groups. This

phenomenon is true for many matters of public debate and should be a cause of concern.

Such unregulated speech in the public sphere also brings up the concern that the objective

truth might get drowned out in the cacophony of opinions. Giving each and every opinion

serious time for consideration destroys any possibility of knowledge formation via

deliberation. This is because this kind of freedom of speech and expression frequently leads

to one group suppressing that freedom of another group and silencing their truths through the

means of rhetoric, propaganda, defamation, and even hate speech. Hate speech is speech that

is motivated by religious, racial, ethnic, or political animosity. This kind of speech is intended

and generally does have a harmful effect on its target. Hate speech inevitably leads to the

target of said speech having its freedoms suppressed by those influenced by the speech.

While Mill supports the state regulation of hate speech-related conduct, it cannot be denied

that it is a consequence of the freedom of public speech. There are numerous historical

examples of this happening. For instance, Hitler rose to power in a Germany that had quite a

liberal policy on the freedom of speech. Hitler harnessed the power of the radio to propagate

his rhetoric filled hate speech against the Jews with an effectiveness and reach that was

possible only through the freedom of speech. As The New York Times put it at the time,

“Nazi Germany, in fact, has raised the effectiveness of propaganda by radio to a higher pitch

of development than any other nation in Europe”. Through the coining of new words and the
 Thamrappally

repurposing of old ones to convey a new meaning, Hitler was able to produce certain effects

and stir up certain emotions to disastrous effects. Thus, under the guise of free speech, it is

possible to propagate ideas that could potentially cause harm to others.

Mill might respond to my objection by arguing that if free discussion in the public domain is

to permitted only in a regulated manner, how can we be certain about the wisdom of the

people deciding what is and isn‟t permitted? Freedom of speech is the natural extension of

freedom of thought, and thus should it be regulated it would be akin to suppressing our very

own thoughts. Free speech, especially free political speech is the beacon of all other

freedoms. Only if we have free political speech can we question authorities- which in turn

will lead to other freedoms? If we allow our freedom of speech to be curtailed by some

authority, it could lead to even more disastrous consequences. If an individual in such a

society has ideas that differ from the ones approved by the government, he would have no

way to express them. Further Mill would argue that should we impose such restrictions on

free speech, it would imply that we believe the censor to be infallible and what whatever

restrictions to speech they make be completely justified. However, Mill says that we have

ample evidence to suggest that people are not infallible and that this hypothetical censor

would not be able, in all cases to weed out the truth from falsehoods. Mill further would

argue that in the past ages there have been opinions and ideas that were suppressed that we

now know to be true. Thus if we had a censor permitting what can and cannot be said, it

would lead to a stagnation of human society at the censors' behest. As Mill puts it „ages are

no more infallible than individuals‟.

 Thamrappally

I reply that the purpose of this paper is not to argue for the regulation of freedom of speech.

The freedom of speech has numerous non-consequentialist benefits. For instance, it is a

governor of other freedoms, and the erosion of it is usually a reliable signifier that some

semblance of totalitarianism is beginning to take root. Freedom of speech is also crucial to

the right of a citizen to participate in democratic political processes. Free speech is an

essential element of political participation and democracy, rather than just a means of

achieving them. The curtailment of this freedom would have disastrous consequences to any

society. Rather, what I have argued for so far is the fact that the Millian justification of free

speech, in most cases does not work out in the idyllic manner that he has presented it. A

majority of Mill‟s justification of the freedom of speech revolves around the discovery of

truth as a result of free speech. However, as I have shown in the paper, there is no empirical

proof to back this claim. On the contrary, I have raised a number of concerns over the

harmful effects that this freedom could entail. Despite some of my misgivings I still believe

that the freedom of speech is essential to the well being of any society- just not for the

reasons Mill provides. To echo the Churchillian defence for democracy: Freedom of speech is

the worst way to ensure truth and understanding, bar all of the others.

In this paper, I have argued that Mill‟s justification for the freedom of speech falters, because

it is empirically impossible to prove whether or not the free speech in the public realm leads

to the discovery of truth. Further, I have gone on to show that in many instances the freedom

of speech leads to the dissemination of untruths that do more harm to society than good. I

have also made clear, that this paper does not, in any way advocate for the curtailment of

freedom of speech, in any capacity; rather it simply calls into question Mill‟s justification for

free speech as a means of discovering the truth.

(Word Count: 2510)

 Thamrappally

Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart, et al. Utilitarianism ; and, On Liberty: Including Mill's Essay on Bentham'

and Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Blackwell Pub.,

2003.

Hylton, Keith. Implications of Mill’s Theory of Liberty for the Regulation of Hate Speech and

Hate Crimes. The University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, 1996.

Badamchi, Kabasakal Devrim. Justifications of freedom of speech: Towards a double-

grounded non-consequentialist approach. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 2014

Danaher, John. Mill’s Argument for Free Speech. Philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com,

2018