Week 3: Interesting Stuff

Welcome back for another week! This week was much less problematic than last week, as I was able to find a source that was more relevant to the subject of my Research project. Over the course of the past week, I have read more specifically into one philosopher that could be related to my topic. I read the book On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. You may know him as the founder of utilitarianism, but this book focuses on another topic that Mill was involved in, civil rights. Before I go into some of the interesting details of the book, I would like to say that although I have read the book, it is not directly linked to the subject of knowledge, but is more focused on civil liberties, specifically freedom of speech. As such, this week's post won't be so much about knowledge itself, but rather on the content of the book, and you guys can comment below on how you think this content could be related to the topic of epistemology.
In Chapter II of the book, the focus of what I will be talking about, called "Of the Liberty of Though and Discussion," Mill presents his primary thesis, in which he believes governments and people should not prohibit free speech. He first points out one of the primary arguments for this belief by saying it is the best defense against tyrannical and corrupt governments, but also presents other arguments for this belief, such as with fallibility. He observes that humans can be fallible, such that we may make a wrong decision when in the face of a certain situation. Therefore, by allowing free speech to be practiced, there is more opportunity to reveal the truth of what to do in such situations, as many different points of view can be shared, discussed, and decided upon. With this open discussion of ideas, the truth can be presented and accepted rather than false or bad ideas being spread about. One objection that he raised for this argument was that if one conscientiously and honestly made the decision to prohibit free speech for the reason that it would actually cause harm to others if they did not, then it would be okay to prohibit free speech. However, Mill counters this by arguing that complete freedom of contradicting opinions is necessary for being able to justify beliefs in the first place. Without permitting free speech, there is no assurance of any policy or belief to be right, and as such free speech should always be put in practice.
Hopefully, that explanation wasn't too confusing, but I do hope to see you ideas about how this connects to knowledge in the comments. Other than that, I'll see you next week!