Business law

(i) Mill and Langton disagree about whether we have an absolute basic legal right to free
speech. Who do you think has the better position/argument?
(ii) Regardless of who you think has the better position/argument, what does it mean for
there to be a “basic legal right to free speech”, and what does it mean for this right to be
“absolute” rather than “conditional”? Why does Mill believe we have an absolute right to
free speech, and why does Langton believe this right is only conditional? What are their
respective reasons/arguments for their positions?
(iii) After answering these questions, critically evaluate the position you think is better. Why
do you find this position more plausible? What is the strongest objection or worry you
can raise to it? Does it have implications for the law that some will find palatable? Be sure
to explain any objection(s) you raise in sufficient detail (the objections do not have to be
yours, but the explanations of them must be). What is the best way for Mill/Langton to
respond to the objection(s), so as to preserve the plausibility of their view?

Sample Solution