> Mill’s reasoning ultimately rests on what principles he believes would result in the best outcome, from a utilitarian perspective. The point I’m making is tha

> Mill’s reasoning ultimately rests on what principles he believes would result in the best outcome, from a utilitarian perspective. The point I’m making is that he wasn’t some free speech absolutist, but that an assessment of harm/utility undergirds his thinking, and that the different media environment would be something Mill would have to grapple with. And it could lead to an exception. I suppose that's possible, but outside a specific argument as why Mill should change his mind, I'm hard pressed to think he would. You're right that he wasn't an absolutist, but in my experience a sufficiently advanced utilitarian philosophy is virtually indistinguishable from a deontological one. This stems from the obvious limitations in human ability to perform the ethical calculations required by utilitarianism. > You seem more concerned with defending Ben than thinking through what needs to be considered in this issue. No, I'm trying to elicit a concrete criticism or argument that I can engage with. I happen to agree with Ben's position: so don't just tell me I'm not thinking about the issues, tell me why I'm wrong.