Abstract

This paper reconstructs and critically evaluates John Stuart Mill’s arguments for freedom of expression and against paternalistic coercion as articulated in On Liberty. Mill contends that silencing dissenting opinions is unjust regardless of their truth, and that coercive interference with individual conduct is permissible only to prevent harm to others. By grounding liberty in human fallibility, the epistemic value of dissent, and respect for individual agency, Mill offers a principled account of the limits of social and political authority. The paper argues that while Mill’s arguments successfully establish liberty as a strong presumptive constraint on coercion, they rely on assumptions about rational capacity and social conditions that limit their applicability in contexts marked by structural inequality and indirect harm. Mill’s framework is thus defended as foundational but incomplete, requiring supplementation rather than rejection.