He seems confused in that libel and slander existed back then.
How so?
Right at the beginning he incorrectly claims it was argued that free speech ends at others feelings. Which is not correct at all. He actually argued that free speech ends where libel and slander begin. Meaning we have an obligation to protect others unless legal cause justifies.
I stopped watching at this point. Back then slander and libel were much easier to prosecute. Especially as one's reputation was a form of currency (good moral character). His point was that free speech doesn't and shouldn't open the door for unfettered character assassination. As such, even with free speech, there exists a social obligation to uphold such standards.
he incorrectly claims it was argued that free speech ends at others feelings.
Ubersoy doesn't say Mill said that; he said a modern interpretation of Mill's harm principle would unfortunately come to that conclusion. Mill would prefer a focus on slander and libel, but it's easy to see how "category of offences against others, may rightly be prohibited" could be abused.
(post is archived)