Freedom of Expression: J.S. Mill versus Jeremy Waldron

Authors

  • Elisabeth-Gabrielle Şatalan Postgraduate student, University of Bucharest, Faculty of Political Science, Bucharest, Romania

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18662/upalaw/104

Keywords:

freedom of expression, the harm principle, Holocaust denialism, utilitarianism

Abstract

The first section will give an overview of case that Udo Pastörs brought to the European Court of Human Rights (EC(t)HR) case and the decision that was made.

This will be followed up with Mill’s theory and what he would have most likely concluded on the topic, followed by Waldron’s perspective.

This article argues that Mill would have agreed with Pastörs and would not have chosen to limit his freedom of speech, while Waldron would have agreed with the court, limiting Pastörs’ freedom.

References

European Convention on Human Rights. (2010). Strasbourg: Council Of Europe. European Convention on Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

European Court of Human Rights. (2019). Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14 EC(t)HR. European Court of Human Rights https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-196148%22]}

Mill, J. S. (2019). On Liberty (excerpts). In R. Pierik, (ed.), Law, Justice and Morality 1 Reader. (pp. 95-109). University of Amsterdam.

Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. (pp. 77-89). Harvard University Press.

Downloads

Published

2023-05-24

How to Cite

Şatalan, E.-G. . (2023). Freedom of Expression: J.S. Mill versus Jeremy Waldron. Anuarul Universitatii "Petre Andrei" Din Iasi - Fascicula: Drept, Stiinte Economice, Stiinte Politice, 30, 243-247. https://doi.org/10.18662/upalaw/104