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 that drives individual human beings to search for answers and fulfillment in their mortal life. The human mind is designed to interrogate and investigate, without which the progress of human civilization would not have been possible. Of the various freedoms a human desire in her life, freedom of expression is one of the most important as it is connected to almost all other freedom that leads her to 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 that occur to them and which they feel need 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 with untrammeled freedom of expression. This leaves us in a peculiar dilemma, do we safeguard the community or the freedom of expression of an individual?

“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?

Jeremy Bentham

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 time what emanates as rules are 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 secure as the majority to express their thoughts, but it does not mean the license to attack each other with impunity.

This requires an independent authority that 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 the truth. And this authority must be beyond biases and the influence of the government. Hence, till such authority is created we cannot reduce specific ideas as ‘hate speech’ and dismiss them into obscurity. As Mill says, “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”