The First Amendment Violation vs. John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle?
Describes a policy, adopted by Stanford Students, which restricts certain types of free speech and examines whether this policy conflicts with the first amendment or is a just application of John Stuart Mill's harm principle.
# 32269 | 650 words | 2 sources | 2002 |
Published on Sep 29, 2003 in Law (Criminal) , Law (Constitution) , Criminology (Criminal Justice and Corrections) , Hot Topics (Censorship)
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
Stanford Students adopted a policy that made personally vilifying expressions an offense subject to penalties. The policy described outlawed expressions as "…words or non-verbal symbols…commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or contempt for human beings on the basis of their sex, race, color, handicap, religion, or national or ethnic origin. This paper examines whether this policy should be ruled a violation of the First Amendment's right to free speech or whether it is a legitimate application of John Stuart Mill's harm principle.
Cite this Analytical Essay:
The First Amendment Violation vs. John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle? (2003, September 29) Retrieved August 08, 2022, from https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/the-first-amendment-violation-vs-john-stuart-mill-harm-principle-32269/
"The First Amendment Violation vs. John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle?" 29 September 2003. Web. 08 August. 2022. <https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/the-first-amendment-violation-vs-john-stuart-mill-harm-principle-32269/>