View topic on PhilPapers for more information
Related categories

56 found
Order:
More results on PhilPapers
1 — 50 / 56
  1. R.K. Nar*y*N on Freedom of Speech and Fair Equality of Opportunity.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscript
    In this paper, I present an obstacle to realizing John Rawls’s system of justice. The basic liberties have lexical priority, but they risk undermining fair equality of opportunity, because freedom of speech allows us to spread false prejudices. I present the obstacle through a pastiche of a notable fiction writer from the Indian sub-continent.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Is There a Duty to Speak Your Mind?Michael Hannon - forthcoming - Social Epistemology:1-16.
    In his recent book, Joshi (2021) argues that the open exchange of ideas is essential for the flourishing of individuals and society. He provides two arguments for this claim. First, speaking your mind is essential for the common good: we enhance our collective ability to reach the truth if we share evidence and offer different perspectives. Second, speaking your mind is good for your own sake: it is necessary to develop your rational faculties and exercise intellectual independence, both of which (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Democracy, Paternalism, and Campaign Finance.Adam Hosein - forthcoming - Public Affairs Quarterly.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. The Basic Liberties: An Essay on Analytical Specification.Stephen K. McLeod & Attila Tanyi - forthcoming - European Journal of Political Theory.
    We characterize, more precisely than before, what Rawls calls the “analytical” method of drawing up a list of basic liberties. This method employs one or more general conditions that, under any just social order whatever, putative entitlements must meet for them to be among the basic liberties encompassed, within some just social order, by Rawls’s first principle of justice (i.e., the liberty principle). We argue that the general conditions that feature in Rawls’s own account of the analytical method, which employ (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5. Is J.S. Mill’s Account of Free Speech Sustainable in the Age of Social Media?Nevin Chellappah - 2022 - Stance 15:44-55.
    In this paper, I examine whether John Stuart Mill’s account of free speech can survive three main challenges posed by social media. First, I consider the problem of social media failing to distinguish between emotive and factual language. Second, I look at the problem of algorithms creating moralism. I then turn to a potential objection to my first two challenges. The objection elucidates the benefits of social media’s emotional and algorithmic character, amplifying arguments and increasing public engagement. However, I take (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. 2022 Global Religious Recognition Report. Cometan - 2022 - Preston, UK: The Religious Recognition Project.
    Conditions for recognition of religion or belief (RoRB) continued to deteriorate around the world from June 2021 to June 2022. Authoritarian regimes bent on controlling religious activity maintained a foothold in Africa, Asia and parts of Central and South America. The liberties enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights are at serious threat by the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine. While in Afghanistan, the Taliban's reclamation of power after twenty years of being kept at bay likely signals a new (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Reconciling Regulation with Scientific Autonomy in Dual-Use Research.Nicholas G. Evans, Michael J. Selgelid & Robert Mark Simpson - 2022 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 47 (1):72-94.
    In debates over the regulation of communication related to dual-use research, the risks that such communication creates must be weighed against against the value of scientific autonomy. The censorship of such communication seems justifiable in certain cases, given the potentially catastrophic applications of some dual-use research. This conclusion however, gives rise to another kind of danger: that regulators will use overly simplistic cost-benefit analysis to rationalize excessive regulation of scientific research. In response to this, we show how institutional design principles (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8. Toward Linguistic Responsibility: The Harm of Speech Acts.Emanuele Costa - 2021 - Public Philosophy Journal 4 (1).
    In this short article, I analyze forms of public speech by individuals in positions of power through a framework based on Austin’s theory of speech acts. I argue that because of the illocutionary and perlocutionary force attached to such individuals’ offices and their public figures, their public speech qualifies for being framed as speech acts—which are not covered by even a broad understanding of freedom of speech or right to privacy. Therefore, I formulate a call for the assessment of public (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. The Limits of the Rights to Free Thought and Expression.Barrett Emerick - 2021 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 31 (2):133-152.
    It is often held that people have a moral right to believe and say whatever they want. For instance, one might claim that they have a right to believe racist things as long as they keep those thoughts to themselves. Or, one might claim that they have a right to pursue any philosophical question they want as long as they do so with a civil tone. In this paper I object to those claims and argue that no one has such (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10. Intellectual Trust and the Marketplace of Ideas.Allan Hazlett - 2021 - In Michael P. Lynch & Allesandra Tanesini (eds.), Polarization, Arrogance, and Dogmatism: Philosophical Perspectives.
    Here is a familiar liberal argument: just as it can be beneficial to establish a marketplace, in which producers of goods freely compete for the custom of consumers, it can be beneficial to establish a “marketplace of ideas,” in which defenders of ideas freely compete for the acceptance of those ideas by others. This paper is about the preconditions for the proper functioning of liberal marketplaces, and of marketplaces of ideas in particular. I will argue that, just as the proper (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. Silencing and Freedom of Speech in UK Higher Education.Finlay Malcolm - 2021 - British Educational Research Journal 47 (3):520-538.
    Freedom of speech in universities is currently an issue of widespread concern and debate. Recent empirical findings in the UK shed some light on whether speech is unduly restricted in the university, but it suffers from two limitations. First, the results appear contradictory. Some studies show that the issue of free speech is overblown by media reportage, whilst others track serious concerns about free speech arising from certain university policies. Second, the findings exclude important issues concerning restrictions to speech on (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. “I Dare Not Mutter a Word”: Speech and Political Violence in Spinoza.Hasana Sharp - 2021 - Crisis and Critique 1 (8):365-386.
    This paper examines the relationship between violence and the domination of speech in Spinoza’s political thought. Spinoza describes the cost of such violence to the State, to the collective epistemic resources, and to the members of the polity that domination aims to script and silence. Spinoza shows how obedience to a dominating power requires pretense and deception. The pressure to pretend is the linchpin of an account of how oppression severely degrades the conditions for meaningful communication, and thus the possibilities (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. ‘Lost, Enfeebled, and Deprived of Its Vital Effect’: Mill’s Exaggerated View of the Relation Between Conflict and Vitality.Robert Mark Simpson - 2021 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 95 (1):97-114.
    Mill thinks our attitudes should be held in a way that’s active and ‘alive’. He believes attitudes that lack these qualities—those held dogmatically, or in unreflective conformity—are inimical to our well-being. This claim then serves as a premiss in his argument for overarching principles of liberty. He argues that attitudinal vitality, in the relevant sense, relies upon people experiencing attitudinal conflict, and that this necessitates a prioritization of personal liberties. I argue that, pace Mill, contestation isn’t required for attitudinal vitality. (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. The Conversational Character of Oppression.Robert Mark Simpson - 2021 - Australasian Philosophical Review 5 (2):160-169.
    McGowan argues that everyday verbal bigotry makes a key contribution to the harms of discriminatory inequality, via a mechanism that she calls sneaky norm enactment. Part of her account involves showing that the characteristic of conversational interaction that facilitates sneaky norm enactment is in fact a generic one, which obtains in a wide range of activities, namely, the property of having conventions of appropriateness. I argue that her account will be better-able to show that everyday verbal bigotry is a key (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. Are There Limits to Free Speech?Peter Singer - 2021 - Journal of Ethical Reflections 1 (4):43-56.
    Freedom of speech has traditionally been a cause championed by the left and liberal side of the political spectrum, against conservatives who have tried to limit the expression of radical ideas. Here are three examples from the United States: 1) When I was appointed to Princeton University in 1999, Steve Forbes, whose father had endowed the university’s Forbes College, called for my appointment to be rescinded, and pledged that he would not donate to the university as long as I was (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. Towards a Response to Epistemic Nihilism.Jake Wright - 2021 - In Alison MacKenzie, Jennifer Rose & Ibrar Bhatt (eds.), The Epistemology of Deceit in a Postdigital Era: Dupery by Design. Springer Nature. pp. 39-59.
    This chapter develops an account of epistemic nihilism—roughly, the rejection of truth’s intrinsic or instrumental value in favor of statements that reject or obscure truth to secure an advantage for the speaker—by examining three instances of such nihilism: lying, bullshit, and trolling. It further argues that epistemic nihilism, exacerbated by changes in the media landscape, can pose a significant threat to liberal democratic institutions and ideals by undermining the democratic ideal of good faith engagement on a level playing field, while (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. Harm, "No Platforming" and the Mission of the University: A Reply to McGregor.Lisa L. Fuller - 2020 - In Democracy, Populism and Truth. AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice 9. Jersey City, NJ, USA: pp. 91-101.
    Joan McGregor argues that “colleges and universities should adopt as part of their core mission the development of skills of civil discourse” rather than engaging in the practice of restricting controversial speakers from making presentations on campuses. I agree with McGregor concerning the need for increased civil discourse. However, this does not mean universities should welcome speakers to publicly present any material they wish without restriction or oversight. In this paper, I make three main arguments: (i) Colleges and universities have (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. Pourquoi a-t-on le droit d'offenser ?Charles Girard - 2020
    Le droit d’offenser est partie intégrante de la liberté d’expression. Sa justification repose sur la distinction entre les dogmes, qui peuvent faire l’objet de critiques ou de moqueries, et les individus qui peuvent y adhérer. Sans elle, les désaccords moraux et religieux ne pourraient plus s’exprimer dans l’espace public.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. The Relation Between Academic Freedom and Free Speech.Robert Mark Simpson - 2020 - Ethics 130 (3):287-319.
    The standard view of academic freedom and free speech is that they play complementary roles in universities. Academic freedom protects academic discourse, while other public discourse in universities is protected by free speech. Here I challenge this view, broadly, on the grounds that free speech in universities sometimes undermines academic practices. One defense of the standard view, in the face of this worry, says that campus free speech actually furthers the university’s academic aims. Another says that universities have a secondary (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  20. Moral Grandstanding as a Threat to Free Expression.Justin Tosi & Brandon Warmke - 2020 - Social Philosophy and Policy 37 (2):170-189.
    Moral grandstanding, or the use of moral talk for self-promotion, is a threat to free expression. When grandstanding is introduced in a public forum, several ideals of free expression are less likely to be realized. Popular views are less likely to be challenged, people are less free to entertain heterodox ideas, and the cost of changing one’s mind goes up.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21. Political Correctness Gone Viral.Waleed Aly & Robert Mark Simpson - 2019 - In Carl Fox & Joe Saunders (eds.), Media Ethics, Free Speech, and the Requirements of Democracy. London: pp. 125-143.
    Communicative practices in online and social media sometimes seem to amplify political conflict, and result in significant harms to people who become the targets of collective outrage. Many complaints that have been made about political correctness in the past, we argue, amount to little more than a veiled expression of resentment over the increasing influence enjoyed by progressive activists. But some complaints about political correctness take on a different complexion, in light of the technologically-driven changes to our communicative practices and (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. Das Paradox der Toleranz.Pablo Hubacher Haerle & Martin Beckstein - 2019 - Zeitschrift Für Politische Theorie 10 (2):169-192.
    How should civil society deal with radical actors such as populists? Should democrats engage in an open dialogue or avoid confrontation? Should they listen to them, let them speak and try to expose them argumentatively, or should they deny them any kind of public platform? Rather than providing a normative answer to these questions, this article analyzes and systematizes responses that are already circulating in public discourse. In particular, we focus on reactions to the invitations of the AfD politicians Alice (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. ‘Won’T Somebody Please Think of the Children?’ Hate Speech, Harm, and Childhood.Robert Mark Simpson - 2019 - Law and Philosophy 38 (1):79-108.
    Some authors claim that hate speech plays a key role in perpetuating unjust social hierarchy. One prima facie plausible hypothesis about how this occurs is that hate speech has a pernicious influence on the attitudes of children. Here I argue that this hypothesis has an important part to play in the formulation of an especially robust case for general legal prohibitions on hate speech. If our account of the mechanism via which hate speech effects its harms is built around claims (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. Online Masquerade: Redesigning the Internet for Free Speech Through the Use of Pseudonyms.Carissa Véliz - 2019 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 36 (4):643-658.
    Anonymity promotes free speech by protecting the identity of people who might otherwise face negative consequences for expressing their ideas. Wrongdoers, however, often abuse this invisibility cloak. Defenders of anonymity online emphasise its value in advancing public debate and safeguarding political dissension. Critics emphasise the need for identifiability in order to achieve accountability for wrongdoers such as trolls. The problematic tension between anonymity and identifiability online lies in the desirability of having low costs (no repercussions) for desirable speech and high (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  25. Search Engines, Free Speech Coverage, and the Limits of Analogical Reasoning.Heather Whitney & Robert Mark Simpson - 2019 - In Susan Brison & Katharine Gelber (eds.), Free Speech in the Digital Age. pp. 33-41.
    This paper investigates whether search engines and other new modes of online communication should be covered by free speech principles. It criticizes the analogical reason-ing that contemporary American courts and scholars have used to liken search engines to newspapers, and to extend free speech coverage to them based on that likeness. There are dissimilarities between search engines and newspapers that undermine the key analogy, and also rival analogies that can be drawn which don’t recommend free speech protection for search engines. (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. No-Platforming, Liberalism, and Students (an Interview with Robert Simpson).Alex Davies & Robert Mark Simpson - 2018
    This is the English (and extended version) of an interview originally published in Estonian in October 2018. In the interview, Simpson summarizes a particular way of defending the practice of no-platforming. The varying appeal of different defences of the practice in different socio-historical contexts (i.e. the UK/US versus a post-Soviet country such as Estonia) is discussed also.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. Regulating Offense, Nurturing Offense.Robert Mark Simpson - 2018 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 17 (3):235-256.
    Joel Feinberg’s Offense to Others is the most comprehensive contemporary work on the significance of offense in a liberal legal system. Feinberg argues that being offended can impair a person’s liberty, much like a nuisance, and that it is therefore legitimate in principle to regulate conduct because of its offensiveness. In this article, I discuss some overlooked considerations that give us reason to resist Feinberg’s conclusion, even while granting this premise. My key claim is that the regulation of offense can (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28. No Platforming.Robert Mark Simpson & Amia Srinivasan - 2018 - In Jennifer Lackey (ed.), Academic Freedom. Oxford, UK: pp. 186-209.
    This paper explains how the practice of ‘no platforming’ can be reconciled with a liberal politics. While opponents say that no platforming flouts ideals of open public discourse, and defenders see it as a justifiable harm-prevention measure, both sides mistakenly treat the debate like a run-of-the-mill free speech conflict, rather than an issue of academic freedom specifically. Content-based restrictions on speech in universities are ubiquitous. And this is no affront to a liberal conception of academic freedom, whose purpose isn’t just (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  29. Psychological Harm and Free Speech on Campus.Andrew Jason Cohen - 2017 - Society 2 (54):320-325.
    The basic idea of this essay is that it is a mistake to deny the existence of psychological harms or that such harms may justify limiting certain sorts of speech acts in certain sorts of circumstances, but that such circumstances are not part of the paradigmatic college environment.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. Rettslig moralisme og retten til ytringsfrihet.Kristian Skagen Ekeli - 2017 - Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 52 (3):114-129.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  31. “Punishing Violent Thoughts: Islamic Dissent and Thoreauvian Disobedience in Post-9/11 America,”.Rebecca Gould - 2017 - Journal of American Studies:online first.
    American Muslims increasingly negotiate their relation to a government that is suspicious of Islam, yet which is legally obligated to recognize them as rights-bearing citizens. To better understand how the post-9/11 state is reshaping American Islam, I examine the case of Muslim American dissident Tarek Mehanna, sentenced to seventeen years in prison for providing material support for terrorism, on the basis of his controversial words (USA v. Mehanna et al, 2012). I situate Mehanna’s writing and reflections within a long history (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy.Amanda Greene & Robert Mark Simpson - 2017 - Modern Law Review 80 (4):746-65.
    This article offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of Eric Heinze’s book Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2016). Heinze’s project is to formulate and defend a more theoretically complex version of the idea (also defended by people like Ronald Dworkin and James Weinstein) that general legal prohibitions on hate speech in public discourse compromises the state’s democratic legitimacy. We offer a detailed synopsis of Heinze’s view, highlighting some of its distinctive qualities and strengths. We then develop a (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33. Oppression, Speech, and Mitsein in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid's Tale.Robert Luzecky - 2017 - Clio: A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History 3 (46).
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Fragments.Andrej Poleev - 2017
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. Dekonstruktion der Neutralität. Subjektive Rechte und Politik am Beispiel des „Kopftuchstreits“.Markus Wolf - 2017 - Rechtsphilosophie. Zeitschrift Für Grundlagen des Rechts 3 (2):171-189.
    Der Aufsatz beschäftigt sich am Beispiel des deutschen "Kopftuchstreits" mit der rechtlich-politischen Auseinandersetzung um subjektive Rechte innerhalb des liberalen Rechtsstaats. Wie Christoph Menke in seiner Deutung der für den politischen Liberalismus wesentlichen politischen Konflikte gezeigt hat, bezieht sich diese Auseinandersetzung vorrangig auf zwei Fragen: Wer sollte Anspruch darauf genießen, ein politisches Subjekt zu sein, das heißt, als Gleiche oder Gleicher berücksichtigt zu werden? Welche Ansprüche politischer Subjekte könneen als schützenswerte Verwirklichung subjektiver Rechte gelten? Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich vorwiegend mit (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. Dehumanization: Its Operations and its Origins.Robert Mark Simpson - 2016 - Journal of Law and Biosciences 3 (1):178-184.
    Gail Murrow and Richard Murrow offer a novel account of dehumanization, by synthesizing data which suggest that where subject S has a dehumanized view of group G, S‘s neural mechanisms of empathy show a dampened response to the suffering of members of G, and S‘s judgments about the humanity of members of G are largely non-conscious. Here I examine Murrow and Murrow‘s suggestions about how identity-based hate speech bears responsibility for dehumanization in the first place. I identify a distinction between (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. Defining 'Speech': Subtraction, Addition, and Division.Robert Mark Simpson - 2016 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 29 (2):457-494.
    In free speech theory ‘speech’ has to be defined as a special term of art. I argue that much free speech discourse comes with a tacit commitment to a ‘Subtractive Approach’ to defining speech. As an initial default, all communicative acts are assumed to qualify as speech, before exceptions are made to ‘subtract’ those acts that don’t warrant the special legal protections owed to ‘speech’. I examine how different versions of the Subtractive Approach operate, and criticise them in terms of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  38. Review of Seana Shiffrin, "Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law". [REVIEW]Robert Mark Simpson - 2015 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2015.
    In this review I critically digest the main themes of Shiffrin's arguments, with a focus on the question of whether her "thinker-based" theory of free speech has different, or more ambivalent, practical implications for free speech policy than she allows.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Ytringsfrihet og terrorisme.Kristian Skagen Ekeli - 2014 - Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 49 (3-4):163-178.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. Transparency, Corruption, and Democratic Institutions.Graham Hubbs - 2014 - Les ateliers de l'éthique/The Ethics Forum 9 (1):65-83.
    This essay examines some of the institutional arrangements that underlie corruption in democracy. It begins with a discussion of institutions as such, elaborating and extending some of John Searle’s remarks on the topic. It then turns to an examination of specifically democratic institutions; it draws here on Joshua Cohen’s recent Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals. One of the central concerns of Cohen’s Rousseau is how to arrange civic institutions so that they are able to perform their public functions without (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  41. Intellectual Agency and Responsibility for Belief in Free Speech Theory.Robert Mark Simpson - 2013 - Legal Theory 19 (3):307-330.
    The idea that human beings are intellectually self-governing plays two roles in free-speech theory. First, this idea is frequently called upon as part of the justification for free speech. Second, it plays a role in guiding the translation of free-speech principles into legal policy by underwriting the ascriptive framework through which responsibility for certain kinds of speech harms can be ascribed. After mapping out these relations, I ask what becomes of them once we acknowledge certain very general and profound limitations (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Dignity, Harm, and Hate Speech.Robert Mark Simpson - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (6):701-728.
    This paper examines two recent contributions to the hate speech literature – by Steven Heyman and Jeremy Waldron – which seek a justification for the legal restriction of hate speech in an account of the way that hate speech infringes against people’s dignity. These analyses look beyond the first-order hurts and disadvantages suffered by the immediate targets of hate speech, and consider the prospect of hate speech sustaining complex social structures whose wide-scale operations lower the social status of members of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  43. Hate Speech, the Priority of Liberty, and the Temptations of Nonideal Theory.Robert S. Taylor - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (3):353-68.
    Are government restrictions on hate speech consistent with the priority of liberty? This relatively narrow policy question will serve as the starting point for a wider discussion of the use and abuse of nonideal theory in contemporary political philosophy, especially as practiced on the academic left. I begin by showing that hate speech (understood as group libel) can undermine fair equality of opportunity for historically-oppressed groups but that the priority of liberty seems to forbid its restriction. This tension between free (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. Expression as Realization: Speakers' Interests in Freedom of Speech.Jonathan Gilmore - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (5):517-539.
    I argue for the recognition of a particular kind of interest that one has in freedom of expression: an interest served by expressive activity in forming and discovering one’s own beliefs, desires, and commitments. In articulating that interest, I aim to contribute to a family of theories of freedom of expression that find its justification in the interests that speakers have in their own speech or thought, to be distinguished from whatever interests they may also have as audiences or third (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  45. A Transformative Theory of Religious Freedom: Promoting the Reasons for Rights.Corey Brettschneider - 2010 - Political Theory 38 (2):187-213.
    Religious freedom is often thought to protect, not only religious practices, but also the underlying religious beliefs of citizens. But what should be said about religious beliefs that oppose religious freedom itself or that deny the concept of equal citizenship? The author argues here that such beliefs, while protected against coercive sanction, are rightly subject to attempts at transformation by the state in its expressive capacities. Transformation is entailed by a commitment to publicizing the reasons and principles that justify the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  46. Essays and Letters.Andrej Poleev - 2010
    A compilation of essays and letters written between 2003 and 2009.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. A Kantian Conception of Free Speech.Helga Varden - 2010 - In Deidre Golash (ed.), Free Speech in a Diverse World. Springer.
    In this paper I provide an interpretation of Kant’s conception of free speech. Free speech is understood as the kind of speech that is constitutive of interaction respectful of everybody’s right to freedom, and it requires what we with John Rawls may call ‘public reason’. Public reason so understood refers to how the public authority must reason in order to properly specify the political relation between citizens. My main aim is to give us some reasons for taking a renewed interest (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  48. Caricaturizing Freedom: Islam, Offence, and the Danish Cartoon Controversy.Ashwani Kumar Peetush - 2009 - South Asian Film and Media Studies 1 (1):173-178.
    I argue in this paper that the publication of cartoons caricaturing Islam by Jyllands- Posten is problematic for a number of reasons. First, within liberal political theory itself, there are reasonable arguments that the depictions (at least two) perpetuate prejudice and verge on hate speech. Second, such depictions weaken the social conditions that make possible a thriving democracy (i.e., participation) by marginalizing the already marginalized. Moreover, the caricatures perpetuate an Orientalist discourse about the nature of Islam and the non-West, and (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. The Radical Potential of Listening: A Preliminary Exploration.Lisa Heldke - 2007 - Radical Philosophy Today 5:25-46.
    In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that free speech possesses value because listening is valuable: it can advance one’s own thinking and action. However, listening becomes difficult when one finds the views of a speaker to be wrong, repellant, or even simply naïve. Everyday wisdom would have it that such cases present the greatest opportunities for growth. Is there substance to this claim? In particular, is there radical political value to be found in listening to others at the very (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  50. The Solution to the Real Blackmail Paradox: The Common Link Between Blackmail and Other Criminal Threats.Ken Levy - 2007 - Connecticut Law Review 39:1051-1096.
    Disclosure of true but reputation-damaging information is generally legal. But threats to disclose true but reputation-damaging information unless payment is made are generally criminal. Many scholars think that this situation is paradoxical because it seems to involve illegality mysteriously arising out of legality, a criminal act mysteriously arising out of an independently legal threat to disclose conjoined with an independently legal demand for money. -/- But this formulation is not quite right. The real paradox raised by the different legal statuses (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 56