Contextually, is Mill only talking about law or also social constructs which continue due to a lack of meddling?

This is in the intro to "On Liberty" in which he's working out the role of utilitarianism in governing, but he's admitting that there is a "tyranny of the majority" that applies outside of government. And fighting that is just as important as fighting government tyranny. (although he had not seen the horrors of the 20th century yet, this was 1869)

He goes on to say

"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism."

solid

Wonder what he would think about a prevailing social norm of diversity? Kind of leads into a "everything in moderation, including moderation itself" vibe.

To frame this in other contemporary notions:

Seems that it would recognize diversity achieved through societal peer pressure as being expected and acceptable while that obtained through societal bullying to be illegitimate and best prevented. Bullying can come from greater society; or, any self serving subset. This suggests limitations on the means of achieving diversity rather than moderation in end results would be the goal.

"There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism."

The limit, of course, is the tip of one's nose, the edges of one's life.

'Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.'

It's 'or else' that introduces the conundrum: how does one defend one's 'self' against against the weight of all others, how do you stake out the edges of your life and say 'this far and no farther' and make it stick?

Bluntly: how do you preserve autonomy?

The answer is obvious.

Become politically active? ;)

That's rather vague.

Be a porcupine, they achieve all that and still manage to reproduce.

Is Porcupine a form of Kung Fu like Drunken Monkey?

Not the same quillity.

I see your point.

"Become politically active?"
 

If you're lookin' to waste time: go for it.

Long before one should become politically active, one should become secually active. We all learned that in the 60s. If in doubt, consult a large library of 60s and 70s rock and roll.

If you can explain what 'secually active' entails, I might consider it. If it involves secession then you're talking the 1860's.🎩