If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would

be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the

power, would be justified in silencing mankind (Mill, On Liberty)

Freedom is the motivation which drives individual human beings to search for answers and fulfilment in their mortal life. The human mind is designed to interrogate and investigate, without which the progress of the human civilization would not have been possible. In the various freedoms which a human being desires in her life, freedom of expression is one of the most important as it is connected to almost all other freedom and to her dignified living. Descartes said ‘I think, therefore I am’ but I would like to affirm that ‘I think, I speak, therefore I am’. If an individual cannot convey what she thinks then how can we or she know that they exist. Hence, it is essential for every individual to freely express their views which occurs to them and which they feel needs to be reported for the goodness of the society at that time. 

This leads us to a peculiar problem of whether every individual is entitled to speak whatever occurs to them as restraining their opinion would be tantamount to inhibiting their dignified and meaningful existence. It cannot be the case. Individuals live in an imagined society where they are bonded to other individuals through relations they have built over the years through their freedom to create religion, communities, culture, and traditions. None of these bonds would have fructified without freedom of expression and similarly none of the bonds would remain intact too with untrammelled freedom of expression. This leaves us in a peculiar dilemma, do we safeguard the community or the freedom of expression.

Bentham asks, “The community is a fictitious body, composed of the individual persons who are considered as constituting as it were its members. The interest of the community then is, what?”. To which Mill seems to possibly answer, “Wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests and its feelings of class superiority.” On most of the times what emanates as rules is the interests of the ascendant class hence, it is not surprising that things which were prohibited in the earlier century would be considered gross violations in the current times and vice versa. 

But to oppose any restrictions of expression as an interest of the majority is also harmful since on many occasions the freedom to express leads to freedom to instigate passions against the weak, and the voiceless. In a benevolent community, the minorities must feel as secured as the majority to express their thoughts but it does not mean the licence to attack each other with impunity.

This requires an independent authority which will regulate the freedom of expression of individuals. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument; but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it (Mill, On Liberty). The role of that independent authority must be to dispute lies with facts and create an incentive environment for reporting truth. And this authority must be beyond biases and the influence of the government. Hence, till such an authority is created we cannot reduce certain ideas as ‘hate speech’ and dismiss them into obscurity. As Mill says, “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”