Irving Kristol, and he begins with the view that no one really accepts complete freedom of speech even if they say they do:
For the plain fact is that none of us is a complete civil libertarian. We all believe that there is some point at which the public authorities ought to step in to limit the "self expression" of an individual or a group, even when this might be seriously intended as a form of artistic expression, and even where the artistic transaction is between consenting adults (Kristol 651).
He finds that if we believe that obscenity or pornography is a serious problem, then we have to be for censorship, for a problem needs a solution. He sees this as an issue of principle and as a statement of morality and that society has the right to make determinations of value and enforce them.
The other extreme is offered by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty, where he proposed a simple principle for determining whether society has a right to limit individual freedom, a principle based on utilitarian concepts and applicable to the individual in his or her dealings with society. That principle
That the only purpose for which power c
...