Q. What are the limits that John Stuart Mill puts on freedom of thought and expression?

What critique might we articulate of these limits?

J S Mill's thinking on freedom of thought and expression is self contradictory to his own
philosophical thoughts. Focusing on the harm principal of J. S. Mill, it is not right to implement
Mill's thinking of liberalism on others. Mill has taken it to an ideal level where according to him
freedom of thought and expression is an important part of any individual life till he does not
harm other. We came through an example that if a person is abusing alcohol to himself that is his
own decision to drink and affect his own body but if he drinks alcohol and gets behind the wheel
then the person lost his freedom of expression/thought because in this way he puts the life of
others in danger also. But if we explore this thought of J. S. Mill, we will find out that though a
person have freedom of expression to drink alcohol as he harms only his body but indirectly he
also put the people's lives in suffering, not in a physical way but in a intangible way that people
affiliated with that person either dependent or emotionally attached will be suffered and be
harmed on the day when the alcoholic person gets ill or dies eventually due to alcohol. As J. S.
Mill was a great supporter of colonialism and imperialism he says that any nation under the rule
of Invaders cannot decide either they are capable enough to rum on their own. It must be decided
by the invaders it self. Again J. S. Mill has contradicted his own harm principle in a way that
under the rule of invaders the people have no freedom of expression as they cannot decide their
own fate. It also questions greatly on religious activities but on that we will come later. J. S. Mill
has been called racist by some philosophers and some called him as a philosopher of the future.
As J. S. Mill was in the time of British colonialism even he also worked in the East India
Company. So his philosophical thoughts are some how centered to the colonialism and
imperialism. J. S. Mill has said in his book "On Liberty" that about freedom of speech must be
present in a liberal society and state has nothing to do with any individual's freedom of
expression until unless the individual is harming another individual state cannot question the
individual. For example, State cannot stop a person from smoking thou it is dangerous for health
but state has no right to stop an individual from smoking as this is his/her own act but state can
make it illegal to sell cigarettes or may impose taxes or make warning signs on packets to
discourage people from using it. Mill's philosophical thought about freedom also lacks in some
other scenarios like a Person A has decided to kill a Person B on Friday and the state came to
know about this plan and arrest person A before he commit the crime but Person B got caught up
in an accident on Friday and died. So why should Person A be still locked up for a crime that he
didn't committed. Stanley Fish is correct when he says that there is no such thing as free speech
(in the sense of unlimited speech). Free speech is simply a useful term to focus our attention on a
particular form of human interaction and the phrase is not meant to suggest that speech should
never be limited. J. S. Mill's trilogy i.e. On Liberty, Utilitarianism and The subjection of Women
have their main focus on the word freedom that should be granted to every individual in an
liberal society and he also has a great focus on the freedom of expression for Women.
Nevertheless, we can call his thought more an ideal theory than calling him a racist about his
philosophical thoughts though he showed White Europeans above other.