按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
feelings incident to human nature； that it is hardly ever kept under
restraint by anything but want of power； and as the power is not
declining； but growing； unless a strong barrier of moral conviction
can be raised against the mischief； we must expect； in the present
circumstances of the world； to see it increase。
It will be convenient for the argument； if； instead of at once
entering upon the general thesis； we confine ourselves in the first
instance to a single branch of it； on which the principle here
stated is； if not fully； yet to a certain point； recognised by the
current opinions。 This one branch is the Liberty of Thought： from
which it is impossible to separate the cognate liberty of speaking and
of writing。 Although these liberties； to some considerable amount；
form part of the political morality of all countries which profess
religious toleration and free institutions； the grounds； both
philosophical and practical； on which they rest； are perhaps not so
familiar to the general mind； nor so thoroughly appreciated by many
even of the leaders of opinion； as might have been expected。 Those
grounds； when rightly understood； are of much wider application than
to only one division of the subject； and a thorough consideration of
this part of the question will be found the best introduction to the
remainder。 Those to whom nothing which I am about to say will be
new； may therefore； I hope； excuse me； if on a subject which for now
three centuries has been so often discussed； I venture on one
discussion more。
Chapter 2。
Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion。
THE TIME； it is to be hoped； is gone by； when any defence would be
necessary of the 〃liberty of the press〃 as one of the securities
against corrupt or tyrannical government。 No argument； we may suppose；
can now be needed； against permitting a legislature or an executive；
not identified in interest with the people； to prescribe opinions to
them； and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be
allowed to hear。 This aspect of the question； besides； has been so
of and so triumphantly enforced by preceding writers； that it needs
not be specially insisted on in this place。 Though the law of England；
on the subject of the press； is as servile to this day as it was in
the time of the Tudors； there is little danger of its being actually
put in force against political discussion； except during some
temporary panic； when fear of insurrection drives ministers and judges
from their propriety；* and； speaking generally； it is not； in
constitutional countries； to be apprehended； that the government；
whether completely responsible to the people or not； will often
attempt to control the expression of opinion； except when in doing
so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public。
Let us suppose； therefore； that the government is entirely at one with
the people； and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion
unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice。 But I
deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion； either by
themselves or by their government。 The power itself is illegitimate。
The best government has no more title to it than the worst。 It is as
noxious； or more noxious； when exerted in accordance with public
opinion； than when in opposition to it。 If all 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 mankind。
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner；
if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private
injury； it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted
only on a few persons or on many。 But 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。
* These words had scarcely been written； when； as if to give them
an emphatic contradiction； occurred the Government Press
Prosecutions of 1858。 That ill…judged interference with the liberty of
public discussion has not； however； induced me to alter a single
word in the text； nor has it at all weakened my conviction that；
moments of panic excepted； the era of pains and penalties for
political discussion has； in our own country； passed away。 For； in the
first place； the prosecutions were not persisted in； and； in the
second； they were never； properly speaking； political prosecutions。
The offence charged was not that of criticising institutions； or the
acts or persons of rulers； but of circulating what was deemed an
immoral doctrine； the lawfulness of Tyrannicide。
If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity； there
ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing； as
a matter of ethical conviction； any doctrine； however immoral it may
be considered。 It would； therefore； be irrelevant and out of place
to examine here； whether the doctrine of Tyrannicide deserves that
title。 I shall content myself with saying that the subject has been at
all times one of the open questions of morals； that the act of a
private citizen in striking down a criminal； who； by raising himself
above the law； has placed himself beyond the reach of legal punishment
or control； has been accounted by whole nations； and by some of the
best and wisest of men； not a crime； but an act of exalted virtue； and
that； right or wrong； it is not of the nature of assassination； but of
civil war。 As such； I hold that the instigation to it； in a specific
case； may be a proper subject of punishment； but only if an overt
act has followed； and at least a probable connection can be
established between the act and the instigation。 Even then； it is
not a foreign government； but the very government assailed； which
alone； in the exercise of self…defence； can legitimately punish
attacks directed against its own existence。
It is necessary to consider separately these two hypotheses； each of
which has a distinct branch of the argument corresponding to it。 We
can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is
a false opinion； and if we were sure； stifling it would be an evil
still。
First： the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority
may possibly be true。 Those who desire to su