If it turned out that some speech the vast majority of people agree is deeply offensive also has no value in fostering reasonably held beliefs, what would Mill infer? Choose the best answer. It ought to be prohibited coercively, since speech that has no value in fostering reasonably held beliefs causes a high level of harm. It ought not to be prohibited coercively unless it causes substantial harm to others, given Mill's argument in Chapter 2 that speech should not be prohibited coercively regardless of whether it is true, false, or partially false. It ought to be prohibited coercively, since speech that has no value in fostering reasonably held beliefs has low net value from his utilitarian perspective. It ought not to be prohibited coercively unless it causes substantial harm to others, because the prohibition would require enacting a law that history has shown would likely be harmfully misinterpreted