John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher very interested in political opinions and being a public servant. His views were a mixture of many philosophers of the past, but with their own complexity that made them those of Mill. He took ideas from Locke and others, including Jeremy Bentham and John Herschel. Mill's main research was oriented towards utilitarianism. With all of this brought together, Mill's views on liberty, rights, and liberty gave birth to his book On Liberty. Notably, Mill was also the second MP to call for women's right to vote. Mill was arguably the defender of ideas, opinions, and even oppressed groups of people. His work became something studied by many for years. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayFreedom for Mill was simple, it was freedom of speech. There are, he says, three kinds of beliefs: those which are true, those which are partially true and those which are entirely false. If an opinion is condemned to silence, it should be completely true, because to deny this possibility would be to assume our reliability. The deleted opinion could, conversely, be a part containing some truth. In cases like this, the only likelihood of the truth being obtained would be the confrontation of unfavorable opinions. The glossed over philosophy could of course be entirely wrong. This is the problem with censorship, there is no room for expansion. By condemning an opinion, you also condemn believers, suppressing the group as a whole. For Mill, freedom also meant an optimal cultivation of individuality: a person should be free not only to think and speak as he wants, but also to act as he wants, provided only that he does not not cause harm to others. Individuality is the basis for the improvement of society: it is through the expression by voters of the full extent of their individuality that society becomes attentive to new and better practices. Individuality is, just as importantly, the premise of each person's expansion based on their specific desires. it’s often honest in itself. the end of man is not to act like a worker in an excessively societal machine; the end of man is “the highest and most harmonious development of his powers”. Mill's first argument defending free speech and opposing censorship is quite easy to understand. He states that censoring true expression can deprive people of the opportunity to exchange truth for error. This directly supports the majority of Mill's argument. The censorship advocate can respond now and argue that we can trust censors to filter true expressions from false ones. This way we can have censorship, without denying everyone access to reality. Mill doesn't like this because it assumes that censorship is infallible. He says we have plenty of evidence and common knowledge to suggest that individuals do not appear to be infallible and capable of distinguishing truth from lies. There is no perfect method for censorship. History teaches us, as citizens, this lesson. In the past, opinions and concepts that we currently hold to be true or are told to be true have been suppressed. After all this, Mill wasn't finished. Yes, according to Mill, everyone has the right to express their opinion, even if that opinion is suppressed. But when should you keep quiet? Simple. At least in his mind, it was. All this we.