Consensual 'Libertine' Club Shut Down: Should State Limit Freedom for 'Human Dignity'?

France's Council of State recently ordered the closure of a "libertine" establishment, a venue where participants had given their full consent to activities. The justification cited was the abstract principle of "human dignity," a moral standard invoked by the state to override individual autonomy.

Jurist Daniel Borrillo criticizes this decision as a new form of paternalism. He argues that such state intervention infantilizes citizens rather than fostering their emancipation and self-determination. The ruling implies that individuals cannot be trusted to make their own choices, even when those choices involve consenting adults.

The case prompts a broader debate: to what extent should the state intervene in the private lives of individuals, even when their actions are consensual? The invocation of "human dignity" as a legal basis for restricting freedom highlights a tension between individual liberty and state-imposed moral frameworks. This decision suggests a trend toward prioritizing a paternalistic vision of dignity over the principle of personal freedom.

“

This new paternalism infantilizes the citizen instead of emancipating him.