暑假閱讀，感想如下

How will the internet affect Mill's arguments on free speech?
 
?We all know that truth is valuable. However, how many of us are willing to accept the truth and embrace it? How many lies do you, dear reader, make in one day? Whether it is small lies about whether you finished your assignment or not or big lies that once penetrated could impact your life? In John Mill's book "On Liberty's second chapter, Mill discusses the freedom of speech, but Mill wrote the book in 1859. We have the internet now, so how will this affect Mill's argument on free speech? In other words, what will Mill think if he lives in 2022?
?Mill primarily based his arguments on two premises – the truth is treasured, and freedom of speech allows people to come to the truth. Therefore, we should promote free speech. Mill thinks that if the government or anyone else censors an opinion, it is correct, and if no one challenges the truth, it becomes dead or a faith. Because no one idea is the sum of truth, even those ideas containing only a portion of the truth will help society acquire knowledge. This argument implies that even false ideas are valuable because they both test the truth and prevent it from slipping into dogma and because they too may contain a germ of truth worth preserving. For Mill, Liberty in antiquity was a "contest between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the government."
Mill believes that moral truths do exist. Thus, Mill does not say that all opinions are equally valid in defending Liberty. Mill is not a relativist; he is not saying that all things can be accurate according to their circumstances. Instead, he is simply saying that any single idea might be accurate and that, for this reason, no idea can be dismissed since truth is an advantage to progress. For example, saying that Brexit is a great decision is true, yet saying that because of this, Britain is now going through the worst crisis is also true. Both arguments have supporting points. If we accept one side of the argument as the truth, the beliefs of humanity will not progress, as debates allow people to arrive at the truth through the process of making the other side see their point of view.
Mill tries to show the exigence of popular beliefs about truth while going to great lengths not to state that popular views about things like religion are wrong. To accomplish this, he observes that in the past, governments or rulers have persecuted others for what the public now believes to be true. Thus, Mill creates a logical situation in which anyone reading must accept that if they support persecuting "false" views, they are required to accept their persecution if they are in the minority on a specific issue. Mill can thereby dismiss the persecution of "false" views without condemning modern views as false.
Mill's opinions will not likely change if he has internet access. Debates that happened between person to person are now going to happen online, through Zoom and other meeting APPs. The debates will still happen, and humanity will not stop looking for the truth. Nevertheless, Mill's examples of persecuted truths might no longer be valid if used in a book written contemporarily, as we no longer live in the Middle Ages. Because power is no longer in the hands of a single person (the King), it is no longer possible to decide a verdict based on one person's words. The jury of twelve people, and alternates, must reach a unanimous decision before a defendant is found "guilty." The government must prove the crime was committed "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, because of the internet, trials can be broadcasted, and more people will see them: the more eyes, the more brains, the more voices.
Finally, it is worth thinking about Mill's assumption of the existence of truth in his justification for freedom of opinion. If no one could be wrong or right, would this require tolerance and respect for difference, or could the most decisive opinion simply try to defeat all others? Mill does not try to answer this question because the existence of truth is assumed throughout. If Mill lives in 2022, it is most likely that he will still not answer this question. There will always be one certain "truth" in our lives, which is what we shall choose to believe. It is all right to fight for what we believe in, argue, and debate to protect our own "truth".
?