We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and even if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.
Interpretation
Censoring opinions, even if deemed false, is morally wrong as it undermines truth and freedom of expression.
John Stuart Mill highlights the moral and philosophical implications of suppressing dissenting opinions. He argues that we cannot definitively know if an opinion is false, and even if we do believe it to be false, attempting to silence it is ethically wrong because it stifles discourse and undermines the pursuit of truth. The freedom to express all opinions, including unpopular ones, is essential for a healthy society and its moral development.
In practice
In a debate about free speech, one might quote Mill to emphasize the importance of allowing all viewpoints.
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
As for charity, it is a matter in which the immediate effect on the persons directly concerned, and the ultimate consequence to the general good, are apt to be at complete war with one another.
To think that because those who wield power in society wield in the end that of government, therefore it is of no use to attempt to influence the constitution of the government by acting on opinion, is to forget that opinion is itself one of the greatest active social forces. One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.
There should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences. It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other's conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved.
Political Economy, in truth, has never pretended to give advice to mankind with no lights but its own; though people who knew nothing but political economy (and therefore knew it ill) have taken upon themselves to advise, and could only do so by such lights as they had.
Marriage is the only actual bondage known to our law. There remain no legal slaves, except the mistress of every house.
The first thing to realize in meditation is that there is no authority, that the mind must be completely free to examine, to observe, to learn. And so there is no following, no accepting, no obedience.
We have believed - and we do believe now - that freedom is indivisible, that peace is indivisible, that economic prosperity is indivisible
What is repugnant to every human being is to be reckoned always as a member of a class and not as an individual person.
I'm not a walking extra in a Chekhov play; I'm no Slavic gloom or Irish gloom.
My language is the sum total of myself.
Ask yourself these two questions: Do I remember at every moment that I am dying, and that everyone and everything else is, and so treat all beings at all times with compassion? Has my understanding of death and impermanence become so keen and so urgent that I am devoting every second to the pursuit of enlightenment? If you can answer "yes" to both of these, then you really understand impermanence.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.