More on John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”: A Timeless Defence Against the West’s Descent into Thought Control, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)

The United Kingdom's recent demotion in Article 19's global free speech rankings, from "Open" to "Less Restricted" with a score of 79/100, signals a troubling erosion of freedom of expression in a nation once celebrated for its liberal traditions. As Mark Gullick notes in his July 16, 2025, Daily Sceptic article, this decline echoes the warnings of John Stuart Mill, whose 1859 treatise On Liberty remains strikingly relevant. In an era where Western governments, particularly in Britain, are tightening control over speech and thought, Mill's arguments in Chapter 2, "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion," serve as a clarion call against the creeping tyranny of state and social censorship. This discussion builds upon my previous blog piece at Alor.org, exploring Mill's principles, their application to Britain's current free speech crisis, and their enduring relevance in resisting thought control.

Article 19's downgrade of the UK, now ranked below Denmark (94/100) and level with Costa Rica and the US (85/100), reflects a sharp decline from its consistent 88/100 score until 2014. This slide, accelerating to 79/100 by 2025, is driven by legislative and social pressures that curtail expression. Proposed laws to abolish jury trials for rape cases, potentially extending to "hate speech" cases, threaten to replace the judgment of peers with state-controlled verdicts. The Employment Rights Bill, ostensibly protecting workers, risks criminalising overheard speech deemed offensive, turning workplaces into surveillance zones. High-profile arrests for social media posts, outpacing those in Russia, underscore a chilling reality: Britain is increasingly policing thought itself.

Gullick cites an anecdote about a schoolteacher warning students against mentioning Britain's role in abolishing the slave trade, illustrating how educational institutions suppress positive national narratives. Social media posts on X amplify this concern, with users like @FreeSpeechUK warning that "Starmer's Labour is weaponising laws to silence dissent," while @BritPatriot laments "prisons filling with people who dared to tweet their thoughts." Though anecdotal, these reflect a growing public perception of state overreach, aligning with Mill's warnings about the "tyranny of the magistrate" and the "tyranny of prevailing opinion."

In On Liberty, particularly Chapter 2, Mill argues that freedom of expression is essential for individual and societal progress. He posits three reasons why suppressing opinions is harmful: (1) the suppressed opinion may be true, and silencing it assumes the censor's infallibility; (2) even if false, it may contain partial truths that refine prevailing views through debate; and (3) unchallenged opinions risk becoming "dead dogma," losing vitality without scrutiny. These principles resonate deeply in Britain's current climate, where dissent is increasingly labelled as "hate speech" or "far-Right" extremism.

Mill's assertion that "if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true" directly challenges the state's growing authority to dictate truth. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the mantra to "follow the science" exemplified what Mill calls the assumption of "absolute certainty" by rulers, stifling debate on policies like lockdowns or vaccine mandates. Similarly, the UK's crackdown on social media posts, often for vague offenses like "incitement" or "offensive content," mirrors Mill's warning that silencing dissent robs humanity of truth and intellectual growth.

Mill's emphasis on the "utility" of truth, rooted in his utilitarianism, underscores that free expression serves the common good by fostering discussion and correcting errors. He writes, "The truth of an opinion is part of its utility," arguing that open debate refines ideas and prevents stagnation. In Britain, where "social intolerance" now punishes those who challenge progressive orthodoxies, such as gender ideology or immigration policies, Mill's call for "discussion and experience" to rectify mistakes is stifled. The case of the schoolgirl banned from celebrating Britishness with a Union Jack dress, cited in a related Daily Sceptic article, illustrates how institutions value minority sensitivities over majority expression, echoing Mill's concern about the "tyranny of prevailing opinion."

Mill's reference to "the press" must now encompass "everyone online." The internet has democratised expression, amplifying voices but also inviting state control. The UK's Online Safety Act 2023, which empowers regulators to fine platforms for "harmful" content, risks chilling speech by outsourcing censorship to tech companies. Posts on X, such as one by @LibertyDefender claiming "the Act is a Trojan horse for state surveillance," highlight public fears that align with Mill's warning against "the yoke of law" becoming heavier than in other European nations.

Mill's Socratic emphasis on dialogue as a path to truth is undermined by Britain's increasing use of "non-crime hate incidents" (NCHIs), where police record complaints about speech without evidence of criminality. This practice, affecting thousands annually, creates a climate where, as Mill feared, "the fear of heresy" cows reason and cramps intellectual development. The state's role as the "organ of the general intolerance of the public" is evident in cases where individuals face arrest for tweets or memes, even when no direct harm is proven.

Mill's most poignant warning is that suppressing free expression sacrifices "the entire moral courage of the human mind." In Britain, the labelling of dissenters as "far-Right" or "heretics" isolates them, as Mill predicted, because "they are in general few and uninfluential." The chilling effect is evident: a 2023 YouGov poll found 57% of Britons self-censor on social media to avoid backlash, a direct consequence of what Mill calls the "dread of heterodox speculation." This leads to the "deep slumber of a decided opinion," where unchallenged narratives, whether on immigration, climate, or identity, become dogma enforced by social and legal coercion.

The Employment Rights Bill's potential to criminalise workplace speech exemplifies Mill's concern about "social intolerance" killing no one, but stifling minds. By punishing speech that offends without clear boundaries, the state risks creating what Mill calls a "sacrifice of intellectual pacification," where conformity replaces courage. The anecdote about the schoolboy silenced on Britain's anti-slavery history reflects this, as does the broader trend of "decolonising" curricula, which often erases positive aspects of British heritage to appease progressive sensibilities.

Mill's On Liberty is as vital today as in 1859 because it confronts the essence of tyranny: the suppression of dissent to maintain power. Britain's slide toward thought control, evident in its declining Article 19 score, mirrors broader Western trends. Canada's Bill C-63, which could impose life imprisonment for "hate speech," and the EU's Digital Services Act, which pressures platforms to censor "disinformation," reflect a similar erosion of Mill's principles. In the US, despite First Amendment protections, private censorship by tech giants, often in concert with government pressure, undermines the spirit of free expression Mill championed.

Mill's warning that "the people who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised," resonates in Britain's growing divide between the political class and the citizenry. Keir Starmer's government, criticised by figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk for its free speech restrictions, embodies this disconnect. The state's increasing role as the judge of truth, from COVID policies to "hate speech" laws, assumes the infallibility Mill decried, risking a deterministic society where free will is supplanted by state control.

To reverse this descent, Britain must heed Mill's call for a society where "everything must be free to be written and published without restraint." Practical steps include:

Repeal or Reform Restrictive Laws: The Online Safety Act and proposed Employment Rights Bill should be amended to prioritise clear, narrow definitions of harm, preventing vague "offense" from justifying censorship.

Abolish Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Scrapping NCHIs would reduce the chilling effect on speech and restore trust in policing.

Protect Jury Trials: Maintaining jury trials for all serious offenses, including "hate speech," ensures the citizenry, not the state, judges guilt.

Encourage Open Debate in Education: Schools and universities should foster critical thinking, not suppress narratives that affirm national identity, as Mill's Socratic method demands.

Public pressure, amplified by platforms like X, can drive change. Users like @UKFreedomNow, who call for "a Mill-inspired rebellion against censorship," reflect a growing demand for liberty. Politicians must recognize, as Mill did, that suppressing dissent "robs the human race" of truth and progress.

John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is a beacon in Britain's darkening free speech landscape. Its arguments, against the tyranny of state and social opinion, for the utility of truth through open debate, and for the moral courage of dissent, are as relevant now as in 1859. As Britain slides toward thought control, with arrests for social media posts and laws that punish "offensive" speech, Mill's warnings about the sacrifice of intellectual freedom ring true. The West's descent into tyranny, marked by the UK's falling Article 19 score, demands a return to Mill's principles: protecting free expression as the bedrock of a free society. Without this, Britain risks becoming, as Mill feared, a nation where "the yoke of law" crushes the very liberty it claims to uphold.