2022/08/22 by Mark Tunick · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Political Theory and Influence #American Constitutional Law and Politics #Political Philosophy and Ethics
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s0953820822000280
openalex publication_date 2022/08/22 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
Abstract Mill didn't resolve this puzzle: if prostitution must be tolerated according to his principle of liberty as it doesn't non-consensually harm others, why punish the accessory – the pimp? Yet in On Liberty 's passage on pimps (CW 18:296–7) Mill seriously considers restricting pimps’ speech for reasons other than preventing harm: pimps’ speech undermines decisional autonomy for purposes the state regards as immoral, and in response the state may use coercion to counteract such immoral influences. In light of this, I argue that we need to rethink the standard view that Mill opposes restrictions on speech that does not harm others.