Which of the following did john stuart mill argue was a permissible reason to restrict an expression of individual liberty?
-if the majority found it offensive.
-if it challenged the authority of the sitting government.
-if it resulted in harm.
-if the nation was at war.

The right answer is "If it resulted in harm. "

In his work, Mill refers to the nature and limits of power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. Mill develops with greater precision than any previous philosopher the principle of harm. The principle of harm ensures that each individual has the right to act as he or she wishes, as long as their actions do not harm others. If action directly affects only the person who is performing it, then society has no right to intervene, even if one feels that the individual is harmed. To paraphrase Mill, "about himself, about his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill argues, however, that individuals are forewarned of doing something bad for themselves or their property by the same principle of harm, for no one lives alone and, in doing harm to himself, others will also be harmed. It exempts from this principle those who are incapable of self-government, such as small children or those who live in backward societies.

the difference between an explicit and implicit meaning is that the explicit meaning of a poem is that the detail is exactly defined. nothing is left to interpretation. an implicit meaning is an implied meaning. kabir's poetry is both explicit and implicit in that it can be interpreted on different levels. the explicit meaning leaves nothing to interpretation while the implicit meaning leaves lots open to interpretation. an example of this is found in the poem "rumi and the spiritual lover". 

idk

explanation: