nd were it different from his own. It is just as wrong to silence the expression of opinion, for to do so would be robbing the human race, this generation and the next, and those who dissent from the opinion more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they have been deprived of the chance to change their mind and accept the alternative view. If the opinion is wrong, they lose the change top get a clearer and livelier impression of the truth by contrast.
Mill says there are four distinct grounds for freedom of expression. The first is that if anyone is compelled to silence, that person's opinion may be true, and to deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
The second is that even if the silenced opinion is wrong, it may contain a portion of the truth. Since the prevailing view is rarely the whole truth, it is only from the clash of different opinions that the truth emerges.
Third, even if the received opinion is not just true, but is the whole truth, it still must be contested to prove itself through the contest.
Fourth, there is a danger of the meaning of the doctrine being lost or enfeebled, with the dogma becoming a mere formal profession with no beneficial effect unless it is tested.
Mill emphasizes that it would be wrong to think that he is saying no one should concern themselves about the well-being of another unless their own interest is involved. What he is saying is that such interest should be expressed in persuasion and not in compelling behavior or belief. This is especially important in terms of the right of society to enforce morality, which is a matter of belief and is something of which people should be persuaded rather than forced to accept. Mill makes a distinction between that part of one's life that belongs specifically to the individual and that which belongs to society, and belief clearly belongs to the individual, where behavior may belong to society.
The mere fact that...