Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Just Words? Hate Speech, Harm, and the Justifiability of Legal Regulation.Sam Shpall & Sarah Sorial - 2021 - Australasian Philosophical Review 5 (2):117-128.
    Questions concerning what hate speech is, how it harms, whether it is protected by free speech principles, and how it might be legally regulated have been at the centre of debates about free speech...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Response to Critics.Mary Kate McGowan - 2021 - Australasian Philosophical Review 5 (2):211-220.
    McGowan here responds to essays written in critical engagement with her lead essay (Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm: An Overview and an Application). She here responds to Caroline West, Ishani Maitra, Jeremy Waldron, Robert Mark Simpson, Lawrence Lengbeyer, Louise Richardsoon-Self, Laura Caponetto and Bianca Cepollaro.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • ‘Discrimination Preferred’: How Ordinary Verbal Bigotry Harms.Bianca Cepollaro & Laura Caponetto - 2021 - Australasian Philosophical Review 5 (2):189-195.
    ABSTRACT A widespread thesis in contemporary philosophy of language is that certain speech constitutes, rather than merely causes, harm. McGowan develops a prescriptive account of harm constitution, according to which harm-constituting speech enacts norms that prescribe harm. Ordinary verbal bigotry, she claims, is harmful in this sense. We submit that the norms enacted by ordinary racist (or otherwise bigoted) utterances are not prescriptive. In our view, ordinary verbal bigotry enacts ‘non-neutrally’ permissive norms rendering harmful behaviours locally permitted—and indeed preferred over (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Bending as Counterspeech.Laura Caponetto & Bianca Cepollaro - 2023 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 26 (4):577-593.
    In this paper, we identify and examine an overlooked strategy to counter bigoted speech on the spot. Such a strategy we call ‘bending’. To ‘bend’, in our sense, is to deliberately give a distorted response to a speaker’s harmful move – precisely, an ameliorative response, which may turn that move into a different, less harmful, contribution. To substantiate our proposal, we distinguish two ideas of uptake – interpretation and response – and argue for the general claim that a distorted response (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations