> It begins from the most influential theorist of liberal rights of all time, J.S. Mill
1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out.
2. Mill, while not a nobleman, was still deeply rooted in the British upper class - a state functionary from a well-off family. This is a guy who advocated for the benevolent dictatorship of Britain over its colonists. Even if you could describe him as "permissive" (which I doubt) - that's already a philosophy for the oppressive masters. They permit, or fail-to-permit. Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted.
>1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out.
This is because freedom of speech is fundamentally a discussion of rights and their justification. It's a "freedom", situated in a concept of society. The actual article discusses the matter from this point of view. I'm not sure where you expect an article on what is an idea originating in liberal philosophy to start.
>Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted.
This seems like you have a problem with the state itself - or the idea that the state should have powers to compel, anyway. But once you admit some state power over actions (which you may not do, that's fine) then speech easily falls within this remit too. If you think no power over individuals is permissible - whether to speak or kill - a discussion of liberal rights and freedoms is irrelevant.
> This seems like you have a problem with the state itself
That's a straw-man argument. I didn't say no power to prevent speech is legitimate. In recent days, the issue at hand was censorship by social media platforms / large tech companies.
Sorry, but I'm really just trying to understand your position on this, so hopefully I can learn something too - not argue against you. I'm not trying to pull a gotcha.
>I didn't say no power to prevent speech is legitimate.
You said it's "problematic". What did you mean by that?
1. It doesn't begin from there, it begins with the sentence I pointed out.
2. Mill, while not a nobleman, was still deeply rooted in the British upper class - a state functionary from a well-off family. This is a guy who advocated for the benevolent dictatorship of Britain over its colonists. Even if you could describe him as "permissive" (which I doubt) - that's already a philosophy for the oppressive masters. They permit, or fail-to-permit. Like I said - the _power_ to disallow speech is problematic, not just what gets permitted.