<< In fact Mill's utilitarianism probably undermines his or any defense
of free speech as an absolute right.
Mill, as a sort of utilitarian, a protopragmatist, and a generally sane person, held no such view about "absolute rights." What he says is rather that consequentialist arguments for the suppression of certain kinds of speech or ways of living fail to take into account the consequences of suppression and the advantages of a diversity of views, even obviously wrong ones,a s well as of ways of living. Like anyone with his head screwed on straight, Mill did not think that all speech is absolutely protected, e.g., "solicitation to commit crimes.
As I recall Herbert Marcuse
(who himself was attracted to utilitarianism) was able to Mill's
utilitarianism against the defense of free speech as an absolute
right. Marcuse argued that under certain circumstances reactionary
speech could be justifiably repressed particularly racist and/or
pro-fascist speech.
MArcuse's theory of repressive tolerance has little to do with Mill. Marcuse seemed to think that tht growing tolerance for all kinds of radical speech in the 60s was itself a bad thing because it created ideological legitimation for a liberal state which failed t9o meet people's true needs.
He took the view that the failure of the Weimar
Republic to repress the Nazis paved the way for their eventual
ascension to power.
>>
But as I've noted in this context before, the Nazis were commit8inga ll sorts of murders, assaultsl,a nd actual insuurections before their ascent to power, so if Weimar had wnted to lock them up, it wouldn't have been rendered helpless if it respected freedom of speech to advocate Nazi ideas.
--jks