Austin And Hart Case

The case before the court involves the following issues-

• Whether or not the Decency Act is invalid even in the public sphere as a violation of Right to Liberty

• Whether or not there is a case of judicial over-reach

• Whether or not restricting clothing in public was in interest of public morality

In this essay, I will be advocating for striking down of the Decency Act even in the public sphere, using arguments supporting Right to Liberty. The Harm principle proposes that one’s liberty cannot be curtailed unless a real danger to the well-being of another is under threat. The question of judicial over-reach shall be disproved using Austin and Hart’s arguments on the procedure of interpretation of laws by legal officers. Both of them rejected the idea of a robotic and employing a rigid mechanism for the interpretation of laws. They recognized the gaps and the number of acts yet to be discovered, which wouldn’t fall under the provisions of the legislations, if literally interpreted. Austin and H.L.A Hart recognized the importance of the

The Right to Liberty has been explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as being a Fundamental Right. It is not within the jurisdiction of the courts to dictate when one is to behave a certain manner and curb his liberty, unless a third party is being harmed. This is the Harm Principle as provided by John Stuart Mill , thus rendering this supervision of the state as improper. This coercive use of law to promote majority notions on virtues and morals is destructive of a free society. The virtues promoted are endorsed by a section of the population and are imposed on the general population. An individual must be provided the rights to attain and reject opportunities as he may deem fit. He should have the exclusive rights over his body to protect his integrity. This is the concept of