Free speech, privacy and the Leveson Inquiry Back in February,
Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, told the House of Commons
Press Gallery that there was a "chilling atmosphere towards
freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around
Leveson". And, when giving evidence at the Inquiry in May, Mr
Gove went even further. He argued that free speech didn't
actually mean anything unless people were offended some of the
time. In Mr Gove's view, there is no need to limit the "precious
liberty" of freedom of expression because, for example,
reporting details of an celebrity's indiscretions might
contravene that individual's right to privacy. Freedom of
expression wins every time. But does it? And, perhaps more
importantly, should it? There is a clever jurisprudential way of
trying to answer these questions, for which we have to thank one
of the great legal thinkers of the early twentieth century -
Professor Wesley Hohfeld. Despite dying tragically young (at
38), Hohfeld (who held chairs at both Stanford