Freedom of the Press (redheads+Caroline)

Given that Mill’s central thesis is the “harm principle”, that everyone should be free to do what they will as long as it does not harm others, freedom of the press naturally follows. An article in the newspaper, no matter how provocative, will likely not cause harm by itself. Some people may be offended, yes, but according to Mill “there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended by his holding it; no more than between the desire of the thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep” (On Liberty, 84). I believe, however, that he would argue that things that cause direct harm, state secrets for example, should be prohibited from being published.
Mill measured society not by well-being, but by freedom. Any restriction of free speech, other than preventing serious harm, was tyrannical—no matter how controversial the opinion. As he powerfully said, “if all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind” (On Liberty, 20). Therefore, freedom of the press is absolutely essential to having a just and functional society.
Mill also believed strongly in education and the free flow of information. He saw each person’s goal as moving toward truth and correct knowledge. A free press can inform, get people to think, and present opinions in a knowledgeable manner, all of which Mill greatly desired. In his view, to create a good and knowledgeable society, “human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter” (On Liberty, 76). The press can play a large part in that.