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 targeted groups. In Heyman’s and Waldron’s accounts we find plausible insights into the nature of identity-based social hierarchies, and the harms that redound to subordinated people under the operations of such hierarchies. I argue, however, that both analyses are unsuccessful as justifications for the restriction of hate speech, because they do not ultimately provide reason to think that hate speech is responsible for creating or sustaining identity-based social hierarchies. (shrink)

Mary Kate McGowan’s Just Words offers an interesting account of exercitives. On McGowan’s view, one of the things we do with words is change what’s permitted, and we do this ubiquitously, without any special authority or specific intention. McGowan’s account of exercitives is meant to identify a mechanism by which ordinary speech is harmful, and which justifies the regulation of such speech. It is here that I part ways. I make three main arguments. First, McGowan’s focus on (...) harm is misguided; that ordinary speech is harmful is harder to support, and in turn does not less to support conclusions about whether it is wrong and warrants regulation, than Just Words suggests. Second, if the speech is harmful, McGowan’s account of exercitives is ill-suited to explain why; the relevant instances of ordinary speech seem to express speakers’ views about moral norms, not change social norms. Third, McGowan’s argument for why ordinary speech should be regulated because it is a form of discrimination presupposes a great deal that is controversial about what makes discrimination wrong and legally actionable, and even if it is right it may license the regulation of more speech than many, including McGowan, would deem acceptable. (shrink)

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.

In this article, I provide an argument against the idea that public hate-speech events are harmful because they cause a discrete, traceable and harmful change in one’s propositional attitudes. To do so, I identify the essential conceptual architecture of public hate-speech situations, I assess existing arguments for the direct and indirect harm of public hate speech and I propose a novel way to approach public hate-speech situations: a maieutic approach. On this perspective, public hate- (...) class='Hi'>speech events do not cause changes in propositional attitudes, but rather, if successful, either such events bring a person’s latent propositional attitudes into clear consciousness, or they play with propositional attitudes speakers and their audience had prior to the public hate-speech situation. (shrink)

The dignity approach to racist hate speech regulation maintains that hate speech ought to be regulated because it impugns targets’ dignity and poses a threat to their equal treatment. This approach faces the significant causal challenges of showing that hate speech has the power to erode its targets’ dignity and that regulations can successfully protect that dignity. My aim is to show how a friend of the dignity approach can resolve these challenges. To do so, I borrow (...) insights from the critical legal studies (CLS) approach to hate speech. Specifically, I argue that hate speech can erode its targets’ dignity 1) by constituting an act of discrimination, and 2) by enacting norms that call for treating targeted groups as inferior. Yet while I maintain that the CLS approach offers valuable resources for shoring up the dignity approach, I reject the CLS approach in favor of the dignity approach. (shrink)

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 about hate speech’s influence on children, then we will be better placed to acquire evidence that demonstrates the processes posited in our account, and better placed to ascribe responsibility for these harms to individuals who engage in hate speech. I briefly suggest some policy implications that come with developing an account of the harm of hate speech along these lines. (shrink)

This paper analyzes the case of public anti-vaccine campaigns and examines whether there may be a normative case for placing limitations on public speech of this type on harm principle grounds. It suggests that there is such a case; outlines a framework for when this case applies; and considers seven objections to the case for limitation. While not definitive, the case that some limitation should be placed on empirically false and harmful speech is stronger than it at (...) first appears. (shrink)

We provide a new text corpus from the social medium Telegram, which is rich in indirect forms of divisive speech. We scraped all messages from one channel of supporters of Donald Trump, covering a large part of his presidency from late 2016 until January 2021. The discussion among the group members over this long time period includes the spread of disinformation, disparaging of out-group members, and other forms of offensive speech. To encourage research into such practices of poisoning (...) public political discourse, we added automatic annotations of offensive language to all messages. We further added manual annotations of harmful language to a portion of the posts in order to enable the analysis of more implicit forms of online harm. (shrink)

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 speech by individuals in positions of power through a framework based on “linguistic responsibility.” This framework accounts for the peculiar power structure that such individuals can and do exploit to bring about considerable real-world effects through what could be understood as an exploitation of their speech act power. (shrink)

Recent years have seen an upsurge of inflammatory speech around the world. Understanding the mechanisms that correlate speech with violence is a necessary step to explore the most effective forms of counterspeech. This paper starts with a review of the features of dangerous speech and ideology, as formulated by Jonathan Maynard and Susan Benesch. It then offers a conceptual framework to analyze some of the underlying linguistic mechanisms at play: derogatory language, code words, figleaves, and meaning perversions. (...) It gives a hypothesis for assessing the moral responsibility of interlocutors in dangerous speech situations. The last section applies this framework to a case of demagogic discourse. The framework offered explains how public discourse has harmed social relations and institutions, and is an obstacle to rational resolutions to the political situation. (shrink)

This paper reexamines the foundations and boundaries of free speech through the lens of Judgemental Philosophy. While liberal democracies uphold the right to express without censorship, they struggle to delineate when speech becomes ethically unacceptable or structurally harmful. Using the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—we propose that the ethical legitimacy of expression should be grounded not merely in the right to emit symbols, but in the structural potential of that expression to participate in a meaningful judgement loop. (...) Speech acts must be structurally capable of returning meaning within a shared context to be justifiable as free expression. Expressions that structurally collapse this loop—particularly by disabling Resonance or fragmenting Coherence, such as dehumanizing hate speech, trolling, or algorithmic noise—fail structurally, not just morally. They undermine the very conditions necessary for public reason and shared judgement. We argue, therefore, that freedom of expression must be reframed not as unbounded liberty of emission, but as the 'freedom to mean' within a structure that enables judgement and return. (shrink)

A number of philosophers have become interested in the ways that individuals are subject to harm as the performers of illocutionary acts. This paper offers an account of the underlying structure of such harms: I argue that speakers are the subjects of illocutionary harm when there is interference in the entitlement structure of their linguistic activities. This interference comes in two forms: denial and incapacitation. In cases of denial, a speaker is prevented from achieving the outcomes to which they are (...) entitled by their speech. In cases of incapacitation, a speaker’s standing to expect certain outcomes is itself undermined. I also discuss how individual speakers are subject to interference along two dimensions: as exercisers of certain non-linguistic capacities, and as producers of meaningful speech. (shrink)

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 (...) a duty to protect members of the campus community from the harm and exclusion resulting from hateful or harmful speech, in the same way that they must protect them from sexual assaults and concussions. (ii) In the vast majority of cases, this duty can be fulfilled by holding speakers to standards of discourse that prevail in academic debate, and insisting on a number of procedural requirements. (iii) We should be wary of conservative arguments framed in terms of free speech, because they can be deployed to undermine important functions of the university in a democratic society, namely, to teach students how to be discerning citizens, and to protect thinkers willing to be critical of the government and the ruling classes. (shrink)

Harmful and dangerous language is frequent in social media, in particular in spaces which are considered anonymous and/or allow free participation. In this paper, we analyse the language in a Telegram channel populated by followers of Donald Trump, in order to identify the ways in which harmful language is used to create a specific narrative in a group of mostly like-minded discussants. Our research has several aims. First, we create an extended taxonomy of potentially harmful language that (...) includes not only hate speech and direct insults, but also more indirect ways of poisoning online discourse, such as divisive speech and the glorification of violence. We apply this taxonomy to a large portion of the corpus. Our data gives empirical evidence for harmful speech such as in/out-group divisive language and the use of codes within certain communities which have not often been investigated before. Second, we compare our manual annotations to several automatic methods of classifying hate speech and offensive language, namely list based and machine learning based approaches. We find that the Telegram data set still poses particular challenges for these automatic methods. Finally, we argue for the value of studying such naturally occurring, coherent data sets for research on online harm and how to address it in linguistics and philosophy. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that hate speech expresses hate, and answer some objections to expressivist views. First, I briefly comment on some limitations of pragmatic accounts of harmful speech. I then present an expressive-normative view of derogatory discourse according to which it is expressive of an affective state by presupposing it. A linguistic act expressive of an affective state inherits the normativity that is constitutive of that state, as directed to its intentional object. If the act (...) is successful, it updates the conversational context with the normative appraisal conditions of the affective state presupposed. I argue that this model can be applied to hate speech. I rely on current research on the psychology of hate to identify the appraisal conditions, action tendencies, and motivational goals characteristic of hate. The account supplements other pragmatic accounts of hate speech. (shrink)

Jeremy Waldron, among others, has forcefully argued that public hate speech assaults the dignity of its targets. Without denying this claim, I contend that it fails to establish that bans, rather than counterspeech, are the appropriate response. By articulating a more refined understanding of counterspeech, I suggest that counterspeech constitutes a better way of blocking hate speech’s dignitarian harm. In turn, I address two objections: according to the first, which draws on contemporary philosophy of language, counterspeech does not (...) block enough hate speech; according to the second, counterspeech blocks too much speech. Although these objections should qualify our optimism regarding counterspeech, I demonstrate that each can be turned, with even greater force, against hate speech bans. (shrink)

This dissertation fits within the literature on subordinating speech and aims to demonstrate that how language subordinates is more complex than has been described by most philosophers. I argue that the harms that subordinating speech inflicts on its targets (chapter one), the type of authority that is exercised by subordinating speakers (chapters two and three), and the expansive variety of subordinating speech acts themselves (chapter three) are all under-developed subjects in need of further refinement—and, in some cases, (...) large paradigm shifts. I also examine cases that have yet to be adequately addressed by philosophers working on this topic, like the explosion of abusive speech online (chapter four) or the distinctive speech acts of protest groups (chapter five). I argue that by considering these alongside the ‘paradigm’ cases of subordinating speech that inform most models, we are better able to capture the lived realities of this phenomena, as described by members of groups targeted by such speech. I develop a novel account of speaker authority to explain the variety of pragmatic effects subordinating speech generates. Instead of seeing this authority as reducible to either a formal position or a merely local, linguistic phenomenon, I argue for a conception of speaker authority that is a richly contextual social fact, distributed unevenly among members of different social groups. I also develop an account of collective authority that explains how a group of speakers can join together to subordinate in a way that no individual speaker is capable of doing. This account, I argue, is better able to explain the social reality of subordinating speech than individualist models. Overall, I show how a more fine-grained account of subordinating speaker authority gives us a more accurate picture of the different subordinating speech acts available to different speakers, along with how these may harm their targets. (shrink)

Early in the history of liberalism, its most important proponents were concerned with freedom of religion. As polities and individuals now accept a dizzying array of religions, this has receded to the background for most theorists. It nonetheless remains a concern. Freedom of speech is a similar concern and very much in the foreground for theorists looking at the current state of academia. In this essay, I argue that inappropriate limits to freedom of religion and inappropriate limits to freedom (...) of speech—especially in the form of de-platforming on college campuses—both have, as one of their effects, what I call harms of silence. This means we ought not have those limits, so should seek to change them where they exist. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend an account of harm as event-based but also in the mold of the account offered by Joel Feinberg in his magnum opus, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law.3 The analysis I offer is meant, that is, to be serviceable in a project like Feinberg’s–that is, it is one of normative political philosophy—and, importantly here, useful for determining when speech might rightly be limited. On the account defended here, to undergo a harm is to (...) be the subject of an event wherein one’s interests are wrongfully set back and wherein the status of the undergoing of the harm derives from its being the sort of event that it is (namely, a setting back of interests), independently of the badness of any resulting state. (shrink)

Recommender Systems (RS) on digital platforms increasingly influence user behavior, raising ethical concerns, privacy risks, harmful content promotion, and diminished user autonomy. This article examines RS within the framework of regulations and lawsuits in the United States and advocates for legislation that can withstand constitutional scrutiny under First Amendment protections. We propose (re)framing RS-curated content as commercial speech, which is subject to lessened free speech protections. This approach provides a practical path for future legislation that would allow (...) for effective oversight of RS, particularly in areas of substantial public interest like child safety, national security, and misinformation. (shrink)

Largely thanks to Mill’s influence, the suggestion that the state ought to restrict the distribution of misinformation will strike most philosophers as implausible. Two of Mill’s influential assumptions are particularly relevant here: first, that free speech debates should focus on moral considerations such as the harm that certain forms of expression might cause; second, that false information causes minimal harm due to the fact that human beings are psychologically well equipped to distinguish truth and falsehood. However, in addition to (...) our moral obligations, we also have a distinct set of epistemic obligations—and even when a false belief doesn’t harm anyone, it constitutes an epistemically bad outcome. Moreover, Mill was profoundly mistaken about human psychology: human beings are vulnerable to the influence of a wide variety of false claims via a wide variety of psychological mechanisms. Consequently, there is a purely epistemic justification for restricting the distribution of misinformation: because each of us has an individual epistemic obligation to avoid unnecessary exposure to misinformation, and because avoiding such exposure is simply too difficult when acting alone, we all have a shared epistemic obligation to establish laws or regulations restricting the widespread distribution of misinformation. (shrink)

In recent work Mary Kate McGowan presents an account of oppressive speech inspired by David Lewis's analysis of conversational kinematics. Speech can effect identity-based oppression, she argues, by altering 'the conversational score', which is to say, roughly, that it can introduce presuppositions and expectations into a conversation, and thus determine what sort of subsequent conversational 'moves' are apt, correct, felicitous, etc., in a manner that oppresses members of a certain group (e.g. because the suppositions and expectations derogate or (...) demean members of that group). In keeping with the Lewisian picture, McGowan stresses the asymmetric pliability of conversational scores. She argues that it is easier to introduce (for example) sexist presuppositions and expectations into a conversation than it is to remove them. Responding to a sexist remark, she thus suggests, is like trying to "unring a bell". I begin by situating McGowan's work in the wider literature on speech and social hierarchy, and explaining how her account of oppressive speech improves upon the work of others in its explication of the relationship between individuals' verbal conduct and structurally oppressive social arrangements. I then propose an explanation and supportive elaboration of McGowan's claims about the asymmetric pliability of conversations involving identity-oppressive speech. Rather than regarding such asymmetry as a sui generis phenomenon, I show how we can understand it as a consequence of a more general asymmetry between making things salient and un-salient in speech, and I show how this asymmetry also operates in various cases that interested Lewis. (shrink)

This chapter explores the nature of dehumanizing speech. It begins by considering the nature of dehumanization simpliciter, building on the work of David Livingstone Smith. It argues that dehumanization can take multiple forms; it can be demonizing, enfeebling, mechanizing, or objectifying. It then argues, contra Smith, that dehumanization is not always a way of conceiving of someone. Instead, dehumanization can also be a linguistic phenomenon, whereby one asserts, implicates, or presupposes dehumanizing propositions or attitudes. The chapter then explores how (...) one might assert dehumanizing propositions, and suggests that one can do this with both literal and figurative language. It also explains why some uses of animalistic figurative language are dehumanizing and some are not. The chapter concludes by identifying a uniquely linguistic version of the paradox of dehumanization: dehumanizing speakers who directly address their targets often assert that these targets are subhuman, while, through the mechanism of second-personal address, presupposing that they are human after all. (shrink)

Reforming Freedom of Speech to Eliminate Dogmatic and Negative Thinking and Behavior -/- Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs without fear of government suppression. It has been a cornerstone of democratic societies, enabling progress through open dialogue and the exchange of diverse perspectives. However, freedom of speech also presents challenges, particularly when it allows for the spread of dogmatic thinking, misinformation, negative behavior, and ideological extremism. (...) The question arises: Can we reform freedom of speech to create a cultural mentality free from dogmatic thinking, negative thinking, and harmful behavior without compromising intellectual freedom? -/- The Role of Freedom of Speech in Intellectual and Behavioral Progress -/- Freedom of speech is crucial for intellectual and social development. It allows for questioning of dogma, whether religious, political, or ideological, and encourages open debate that helps refine knowledge and discard outdated or harmful beliefs. However, unrestricted speech can also enable the spread of misinformation, fear-based ideologies, and divisive rhetoric, which can entrench dogmatic thinking and encourage negative behavior. A well-balanced approach to reforming freedom of speech must ensure that while harmful speech and behavior are addressed, intellectual freedom and constructive dialogue remain protected. -/- Reforming Freedom of Speech Without Harming Intellectual and Cultural Growth -/- Rather than imposing rigid restrictions on speech, societies can implement reforms that guide how speech is used in constructive ways. This can be achieved through education, selective regulation, cultural transformation, and behavioral awareness. -/- 1. Education-Based Approach -/- Mandate critical thinking and logic training in schools: Teaching students how to analyze arguments, recognize logical fallacies, and differentiate between rational and emotional reasoning can significantly reduce the spread of dogmatic thinking and negative behaviors. -/- Teach media literacy: In the digital age, misinformation spreads rapidly. Educating individuals on how to verify sources, evaluate evidence, and distinguish propaganda from fact-based information is essential. -/- Encourage scientific literacy: A society that understands scientific principles is less likely to fall prey to ideological extremism and more likely to base decisions on evidence rather than emotion or tradition. -/- Foster emotional intelligence education: Encouraging self-awareness, empathy, and constructive communication can reduce negative behaviors such as hostility, intolerance, and impulsivity. -/- 2. Regulating Harmful Speech and Behavior Without Limiting Thought -/- Laws against incitement to violence, hate speech, and deliberate misinformation: While free speech should be protected, speech that causes direct harm, promotes violence, or spreads falsehoods with malicious intent should be regulated. -/- Promote fact-checking and responsible journalism: Media outlets and digital platforms should be encouraged to uphold ethical standards, ensuring that information shared with the public is accurate and balanced. -/- Encourage platform moderation: Social media platforms play a significant role in shaping public discourse. Implementing policies to prevent echo chambers of radical dogma, misinformation, and toxic behavior can help maintain a balanced and rational discussion environment. -/- 3. Promoting Constructive Speech, Cultural Transformation, and Positive Behavior -/- Encourage public discourse that values logic and evidence: Societies should foster an environment where rational discussion is appreciated over emotional or ideological rhetoric. -/- Promote public intellectuals and role models: Figures who exemplify balanced, critical thinking and positive behavior should be highlighted in media and education to inspire future generations. -/- Shift cultural norms to value evidence-based reasoning and ethical behavior: Encouraging a cultural shift where truth, facts, and rationality are held in high regard while fostering kindness, respect, and constructive interaction can help reduce the influence of dogmatic ideologies and harmful behaviors. -/- Use behavioral psychology insights to design better policies: Governments and institutions can use insights from psychology to craft policies that encourage cooperation, critical thought, and ethical decision-making. -/- Risks of Over-Regulation -/- While reforming speech and behavior policies can have benefits, excessive control poses serious risks: -/- Authoritarian tendencies: Over-regulation can lead to a government or ruling entity dictating acceptable speech and behavior, which may reinforce dogma rather than eliminate it. -/- Self-censorship: People may hesitate to express genuine ideas out of fear of punishment, leading to intellectual stagnation and a culture of conformity. -/- Subjectivity in defining dogma and negativity: If regulations aim to eliminate dogmatic thinking and negative behavior, determining what qualifies could itself become ideological enforcement. -/- A Balanced Solution: Reform Without Censorship -/- The most effective approach to eliminating dogmatic and negative thinking and behavior while preserving freedom of speech is through education, responsible media, and cultural evolution. Instead of limiting speech, societies should: -/- Strengthen education systems that emphasize critical thinking, logic, media literacy, and emotional intelligence. -/- Regulate speech and behavior only when they directly cause harm, such as incitement to violence or deliberate misinformation. -/- Encourage open and respectful debates where diverse viewpoints can be discussed rationally without fear of suppression. -/- Foster community programs that promote constructive discourse and ethical behavior. -/- Conclusion -/- Reforming freedom of speech to eliminate dogmatic and negative thinking and behavior is a delicate but necessary endeavor. Rather than restricting speech outright, societies must focus on education, responsible discourse, and cultural evolution to encourage rational and constructive thinking and interactions. By fostering an environment where critical thought, ethical behavior, and open-mindedness are valued over ideological conformity, humanity can move toward a more enlightened, balanced, and harmonious future. -/- . (shrink)

Recent arguments trying to justify further free speech restrictions by appealing to harms that are allegedly serious enough to warrant such restrictions regularly fail to provide sufficient empirical evidence and normative argument. This is also true for the attempt made by Bonotti and Seglow. They offer no valid argument for their claim that it is wrong to direct “religiously offensive speech” at “unjustly disadvantaged” minorities (thereby allegedly undermining their “self-respect”), nor for their further claim that this is not (...) the case when such speech is directed at “established majorities.” Moreover, their account has either counter-intuitive moral implications or succumbs to logical or pragmatic incoherence. Thus, they have not adduced convincing reasons to further restrict speech. In fact, some of the reasons for this failure provide, in turn, positive reasons in support of free speech. Two important (not new, but newly confirmed) reasons are that restricting free speech undermines both equal civic standing as well as fact-guided (as opposed to blindly ideological) policies. Free speech, in contrast, is indispensable for both. (shrink)

Various philosophers discuss perlocutionary silencing, but none defend an account of perlocutionary silencing. This gap may exist because perlocutionary success depends on extralinguistic effects, whereas silencing interrupts speech, leaving theorists to rely on extemporary accounts when they discuss perlocutionary silencing. Consequently, scholars assume perlocutionary silencing occurs but neglect to explain how perlocutionary silencing harms speakers as speakers. In relation to that shortcoming, I defend a novel account of perlocutionary silencing. I argue that speakers experience perlocutionary silencing when they are (...) illegitimately deprived of perlocutionary influence on a conversation in which they are active participants, where perlocutionary influence on the conversation relates to speech-related perlocutionary goals meant to influence the conversation or conversational direction. Thus, this account grounds perlocutionary silencing in linguistic phenomena and characterizes perlocutionary silencing in a way that explains why those who experience perlocutionary silencing are harmed as speakers. Moreover, this account explains how perlocutionary silencing harms speakers as conversational participants in a way that cannot be captured by illocutionary or locutionary silencing, for a speaker may be perlocutionarily silenced despite illocutionary success. Consequently, the account explains why “All Lives Matter” silences Black Lives Matter and “Not All Men” silences women sharing experiences of sexual harassment. (shrink)

Hate speech detection is a critical aspect of online content moderation, ensuring that digital platforms remain safe and inclusive. With the exponential rise of social media, harmful content such as hate speech and offensive language has increased, necessitating automated solutions for effective moderation. This project employs Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques to classify tweets into three categories: Hate Speech, Offensive Speech, and No Hate or Offensive Speech. By leveraging a Decision (...) Tree Classifier, the system efficiently detects and categorizes harmful content while reducing manual intervention. The methodology involves data preprocessing, feature extraction using CountVectorizer, and training a classification model to achieve high accuracy. The proposed system overcomes the limitations of traditional keyword-based filtering by improving context awareness and scalability. The implementation is designed to process large volumes of data, making it highly suitable for real-world applications. This approach enhances digital safety, minimizes human effort in moderation, and ensures compliance with ethical standards. Future improvements may include the integration of deep learning models like LSTMs or Transformers and real-time social media API monitoring to enhance accuracy further. This project contributes to the growing need for robust and automated hate speech detection solutions in the digital era. (shrink)

A complete theory of harming must have both a substantive component and a formal component. The substantive component, which Victor Tadros (2014) calls the “currency” of harm, tells us what I interfere with when I harm you. The formal component, which Tadros calls the “measure” of harm, tells us how the harm to you is related to my action. In this chapter I survey the literature on both the currency and the measure of harm. I argue that the currency of (...) harm is well-being and that the measure of harming is best captured by a causal account on which harming is causing a harm. A harm for you is the presence of something intrinsically bad for you or the absence of something intrinsically good for you. Thus, although a counterfactual account of the measure of harm need not distinguish between an harm and a harmful event, the causal account reserves the term ‘harm’, not for a harmful event, but only for its effect. Finally, I show how a complete theory of harming can help us to answer questions about whether we can harm people with speech, whether we can harm the dead, and how it is possible to harm future generations. (shrink)

Deepfakes are algorithmically modified video and audio recordings that project one person’s appearance on to that of another, creating an apparent recording of an event that never took place. Many scholars and journalists have begun attending to the political risks of deepfake deception. Here we investigate other ways in which deepfakes have the potential to cause deeper harms than have been appreciated. First, we consider a form of objectification that occurs in deepfaked ‘frankenporn’ that digitally fuses the parts of different (...) women to create pliable characters incapable of giving consent to their depiction. Next, we develop the idea of ‘illocutionary wronging’, in which an individual is forced to engage in speech acts they would prefer to avoid in order to deny or correct the misleading evidence of a publicized deepfake. Finally, we consider the risk that deepfakes may facilitate campaigns of ‘panoptic gaslighting’, where many systematically altered recordings of a single person's life undermine their memory, eroding their sense of self and ability to engage with others. Taken together, these harms illustrate the roles that social epistemology and technological vulnerabilities play in human ethical life. (shrink)

This paper clarifies the legal right to free speech, identifies ways that speech can be harmful, and discusses pornography hate speech, and lies. It is also written for a non-technical audience.

At first glance, hate speech and microaggressions seem to have little overlap beyond being communicated verbally or in written form. Hate speech seems clearly macro-aggressive: an intentional, obviously harmful act lacking the ambiguity (and plausible deniability) of microaggressions. If we look back at historical discussions of hate speech, however, many of these assumed differences turn out to be points of similarity. The harmfulness of hate speech only became widely acknowledged after a concerted effort by critical (...) race theorists, feminists, and other activists. Before the 1990s, slurs were widely considered socially acceptable behavior: mere jokes that weren’t intended to be harmful. Authors like Richard Delgado, Mari Matsuda, and Charles Lawrence pushed back against this dismissal. In this chapter, I show that their arguments for the serious harmfulness of hate speech prefigure and provide support for current debates about the serious harmfulness of microaggressions. Exploring resonances with the 1980s hate speech debate will allow us to explain why microaggressions fall below the cutoff for legal liability but remain apt targets for moral blame. (shrink)

A lot of subordinating speech has moved online, which raises several questions for philosophers. Can current accounts of oppressive speech adequately capture digital hate? How does the anonymity of online harassers contribute to the force of their speech? This paper examines online abuse and argues that standard accounts of licensing and accommodation are not up to the task of explaining the authority of online hate speech, as speaker authority often depends on the community in more ways (...) than these accounts suggests. Instead I argue that online abusive speech is best understood as collective subordinating speech acts, as their authority is drawn from an ad hoc collective. I argue that anonymity and shared language offer online abusers a path to a type of group-authority that explains the harm their speech is capable of. I close by suggesting that similar considerations are in play for IRL subordinating speech, and that online abuse helps to reveal key features of subordinating speech across mediums that are under-emphasized in the existing literature. (shrink)

Through the lens of feminist speech act theory, this paper argues that artificial intelligence romance systems objectify and subordinate nonvirtual women. AI romance systems treat their users as consumers, offering them relational invulnerability and control over their (usually feminized) digital romantic partner. This paper argues that, though the output of AI chatbots may not generally constitute speech, the framework offered by an AI romance system communicates an unjust perspective on intimate relationships. Through normalizing controlling one’s intimate partner, these (...) systems operate as speakers that rank women as non-player characters and license their oppression, which is unjust even in the absence of empirical harms. Understanding AI romance systems as speakers has implications for policymakers. First, this account helps close the so-called responsibility gap in the operation of an AI system. Second, it places these systems under the purview of institutions’ policies regarding hate speech, suggesting one avenue for arguing that these systems may violate extant policies. Finally, it provides support for the pursuit of empirical research into AI romance systems’ effects on users. (shrink)

-/- The Correct Application and Principles of Freedom of Speech: Grounding Information in Absolute Truth -/- Freedom of speech is often regarded as one of the foundational pillars of democratic societies, allowing individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs without fear of government retaliation or censorship. However, the true power of this freedom lies not only in the ability to speak but in the responsibility to ensure that the information shared is grounded in absolute truth. When freedom (...) of speech is misused, allowing the spread of black propaganda, false information, false beliefs, or negative mind manipulation, it undermines the integrity of societal discourse and impedes collective progress. Thus, the correct application of freedom of speech demands a commitment to truth, accountability, and the recognition of the collective responsibility we all bear in shaping the realities around us. -/- The Ethical Foundation of Freedom of Speech -/- At its core, freedom of speech is meant to enable individuals to seek, exchange, and debate ideas freely. This unrestricted flow of ideas is fundamental in ensuring that societies evolve in ways that promote justice, human rights, and understanding. However, while the right to speak freely is essential, it is crucial that this freedom is exercised in a manner that contributes positively to the societal fabric rather than causing harm. Freedom of speech, when exercised correctly, should encourage the exploration of truth, promote factual accuracy, and foster critical thinking. -/- Example 1: Consider the role of journalism in a free society. Journalists are given the freedom to investigate, report, and express opinions on matters of public interest. However, when media outlets intentionally or negligently report false information—such as in the case of “fake news”—they undermine public trust and create confusion. For instance, during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a number of fabricated stories were spread via social media, such as the widely debunked “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory. These false reports led to real-world consequences, including the harassment of innocent people and the creation of division among voters. This demonstrates how misinformation, under the guise of free speech, can be harmful to democratic processes. -/- In this context, freedom of speech is not absolute in the sense that it should permit the propagation of harmful or false narratives. Just as physical harm is a limitation to freedom of action, the spread of misinformation and the manipulation of minds represent a form of intellectual harm. Speech that is based on false information, black propaganda, or the deliberate distortion of facts violates the social contract that underpins a functioning society. These practices not only distort reality but also manipulate individuals, leading them to make decisions based on false beliefs and misconceptions. In contrast, speech grounded in truth strengthens the collective intelligence of a society, guiding people toward informed decisions and ethical actions. -/- Absolute Truth and Its Role in Speech -/- Absolute truth refers to a reality that is objective and unchanging, regardless of individual perceptions or beliefs. It is not influenced by subjective interpretations or distorted by biased perspectives. In the realm of speech, grounding all forms of communication in absolute truth is crucial for the integrity of discourse. When information is rooted in truth, it provides a foundation upon which individuals can build sound, rational, and ethical decisions. Absolute truth is often grounded in scientific evidence, empirical data, and the natural laws of reality, providing an anchor for all forms of communication, whether in politics, science, religion, or everyday interactions. -/- Example 2: In the scientific community, the principle of absolute truth is paramount when presenting research findings. For instance, when scientists discovered that smoking tobacco was linked to lung cancer, the truth of this discovery was based on years of rigorous research and empirical evidence. Although the tobacco industry initially attempted to deny or downplay this evidence in order to protect their business interests, the scientific consensus eventually prevailed, saving millions of lives. This is an example of how grounding information in absolute truth can have profound positive effects on society. -/- In contrast, the spread of misinformation and black propaganda distorts the truth to manipulate perceptions and control behavior. Black propaganda, for example, often involves the deliberate spreading of false or misleading information with the intent to deceive or harm. This type of speech is typically designed to exploit emotions, perpetuate fear, or create division among individuals or groups. When such falsehoods are accepted as truth, they distort reality and create a society based on delusion, not reality. This undermines the very purpose of free speech, which should aim to clarify and expose the truth. -/- The Responsibility of Speech in a Connected Society -/- In a modern, interconnected world, the consequences of speech extend far beyond the individual. What one person says can influence millions of others, shaping opinions, decisions, and even actions on a global scale. Given this interconnectedness, the responsibility that comes with the freedom to speak becomes even more significant. Freedom of speech must be viewed not only as a personal right but also as a collective duty to ensure that the information disseminated is constructive and truthful. -/- Example 3: The proliferation of social media has made this responsibility even more urgent. In 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about the virus spread widely across platforms like Facebook and Twitter. False claims, such as the idea that drinking bleach could cure COVID-19, were propagated by individuals with large followings, putting people’s health at risk. In this case, the freedom of speech was misused, as individuals failed to ensure that the information they shared was based on credible sources or scientific fact. This caused widespread harm, showing how information, when not grounded in truth, can have deadly consequences. -/- This responsibility also includes a commitment to critical thinking and the evaluation of sources. In a society where information is readily available through digital platforms, individuals must exercise discernment in assessing the veracity of the information they consume and share. Relying on reputable sources, scientific evidence, and well-established facts is essential in protecting the integrity of discourse. Those who engage in public speech should, therefore, prioritize truth over sensationalism or personal gain, understanding that their words have the power to shape not only public opinion but also the direction of societal progress. -/- The harm of False Information and Negative Manipulation -/- False information, whether it comes in the form of rumors, hoaxes, or biased reporting, has the potential to create chaos, foster division, and sow distrust. For example, during times of political unrest, the deliberate spread of misinformation can lead to the escalation of conflicts, the breakdown of trust between citizens and their leaders, and even the manipulation of election outcomes. In such cases, the misuse of free speech can harm the very foundations of democracy, undermining its ability to function effectively. -/- Example 4: In Myanmar, the spread of anti-Rohingya propaganda via social media platforms played a significant role in inciting violence against the Rohingya Muslim minority, resulting in a humanitarian crisis. The false information, which portrayed the Rohingya as a threat to national security, was used to justify mass killings and displacement. This is a striking example of how the abuse of free speech, when grounded in hate and misinformation, can lead to real-world violence and human suffering. -/- Similarly, the spread of false beliefs—whether rooted in pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, or superstition—can lead individuals to make decisions that are harmful to their health, their relationships, or society as a whole. In this sense, freedom of speech, when not grounded in truth, can perpetuate ignorance and hinder progress. Negative mind manipulation, which often relies on exploiting emotions such as fear, anger, or resentment, further compounds this issue by distorting people’s perception of reality and encouraging harmful behaviors. -/- Example 5: Anti-vaccine rhetoric is another example of harmful false beliefs gaining traction through the misuse of free speech. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence proving that vaccines are safe and effective, groups spreading misinformation about vaccines have caused significant harm. In the past decade, misinformation has contributed to declining vaccination rates, leading to outbreaks of preventable diseases such as measles and polio. This is a case where misinformation, under the guise of free speech, directly threatens public health. -/- Conclusion: Grounding Freedom of Speech in Truth -/- The correct application of freedom of speech demands that all information shared be rooted in absolute truth. This is the only way to ensure that speech serves its intended purpose: to promote understanding, facilitate informed decision-making, and contribute to the common good. When speech is grounded in falsehoods, it not only misguides individuals but also creates a society based on delusion and division. Therefore, as individuals and as a society, we must prioritize truth in our discourse, taking responsibility for the information we share and ensuring that it is both accurate and constructive. By doing so, we preserve the integrity of free speech and its vital role in fostering a just, informed, and balanced society. -/- . (shrink)

Considering the short history of the feminist philosophy of language, Rae Langton’s article “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts” was highly influential as one of the first positive research programs in the movement. In that paper, Langton – using John L. Austin’s speech act theory – tries to interpret Catharine MacKinnon’s thesis: pornography is a speech that subordinates and silences women. Despite the importance of the subject, those unfamiliar with certain historical and contextual features of the topic would (...) hardly understand it. My paper aims to introduce some of the major accounts in this special area in the intersection of speech act theory and feminist philosophy. Rather than just reconstructing Langton’s arguments and the most common objections against it, I will take a more holistic approach, examining its surrounding literature as well. This article has six sections. In Section 1, I contrast the conservative and liberal arguments against pornography and sketch MacKinnon’s liberal critique. In Section 2, I give alternative interpretations of MacKinnon’s thesis, “pornography is harm.” In Section 3, I try to make sense of the prima facie implausible assumption that pornography is speech. In Section 4 and 5, I will analyze the Langtonian theories about subordination and silencing. Finally, in Section 6, I will mention the most challenging problems for Langton’s approach, considering the verbal nature or pornography, the limits of the protection of free speech, and the different positions on sexual consent. (shrink)

Contemporary egalitarian liberals—unlike their classical counterparts—have lived through many contentious events where the right to freedom of expression has been tested to its limits—the Skokie, Illinois, skinhead marches, hate speech incidents on college campuses, Internet pornography and hate speech sites, Holocaust deniers, and cross-burners, to name just a few. Despite this contemporary tumult, freedom of expression has been nearly unanimously affirmed in both the U.S. jurisprudence and philosophical discourse. In what follows, I will examine Ronald Dworkin's influential contemporary (...) justification for freedom of expression, which claims that a thoroughgoing right to freedom of expression is justified by the fact that it guarantees and preserves liberalism's commitment to equality by offering everyone an opportunity to speak, whereas any other policy, such as state regulation, would fail to offer this equal opportunity. This justification has been challenged by feminists and critical race theorists, who find the cases of pornography and hate speech to be sufficient threats to the freedom of expression and equality of their targets—women and minorities—to warrant limiting freedom of expression in these cases. I will argue that if Dworkin is to take equality as seriously as he claims to, then, by his own lights, he must back away from an unrestricted freedom of expression, in light of these distinctly contemporary challenges of the harms of systemic racism and sexism, which underlie hate speech and pornography. (shrink)

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 in people's capacity for intellectual self-governance. I argue that acknowledging these limitations drastically undermines the putative justifications for free speech of the type that I identify in the first part of the paper. I then show how we can reformulate an account of intellectual and doxastic responsibility on which we may still be held responsible for what we think or believe even though we lack agent-causal capacities in our thinking and believing. Then, in light of this ascriptive account of intellectual responsibility, I show how the key ideahave minds of their owncan (and should) still play a significant role in guiding the legislative outworkings of free speech. (shrink)

The use of language in hate speech is understandably offensive. Though words do not kill, they convey an alarming message that can harm the victim. To understand how words can harm, it is necessary to understand the nature of the meaning of pejoratives or slurs that are used in hate speech. Pejoratives are undeniably offensive. However, they are puzzling as they can be used in two directions, namely, the offensive power preservation and the offensive power destruction. This paper (...) proposes that the direct reference theory of pejoratives can solve the puzzle. A characterization of pejoratives is that it has the property of immediacy. They refer directly to the object of speech. Grounding on a shared context, any descriptions are unnecessary for understanding the offensive message of pejoratives. In this sense, pejoratives have indexical content as it is context-sensitive. The kind of indexical content that pertains to pejoratives is action-oriented. However, its object of reference is empty. In discussing pejoratives that are used in hate speech, some examples of Thai slurs are shown. (shrink)

To what extent are authors morally culpable for harms caused by their published work? Can authors be culpable even if their ideas are misused, perhaps because they failed to take precautions to prevent harmful misinterpretations? Might authors be culpable even if they do take precautions—if, for example, they publish ideas that others can be reasonably expected to put to harmful uses, precautions notwithstanding? Although complete answers to these questions depend upon controversial views about the right to free (...) class='Hi'>speech, this paper argues that five notions from philosophy of law and legal practice—liability, burden of proof, legal causation, mens rea, and reasoning by precedent—can be adapted to provide an attractive moral framework for determining whether an author’s work causes harm, whether and how culpable the author is for causing such harm, steps authors may take to immunize themselves from culpability, and how to responsibly develop new rules for publishing ethics. (shrink)

The paper examines the ethics of truth telling and free speech in Jonathan Rauch’s "The Humanitarian Threat". The central question is this: “Should we suspend the truth to prevent harm?”. Both humanitarians and the anti-humanitarians supply different responses to this question. While the humanitarians supplied a positive answer, Rauch argues that the anti-humanitarian posture of the exponents of liberalism supplied a negative answer. The paper considers the humanitarian argument that puts the welfare of the people above the truth or (...) anything else. Meanwhile, for the anti-humanitarians, the right to speak the truth must be guaranteed at all time. This paper argues that, in practice, the morality of truth telling is not only context bound, it also depends on what the truth is meant to achieve. Thus, the suspension of the truth may be consistent with morality in some medical and sensitive security situations due to the tendency to cause harm. The paper does not argue that the truth be suspended arbitrarily or for mischievous reasons. It only concludes by identifying some practical situations under which suspension of the truth may not be inconsistent with morality. (shrink)

The Violation of the Absolute Law of Free Will: The Consequences of Misinformation and the Flaws in Freedom of Speech -/- Introduction -/- Free will is often regarded as humanity’s defining characteristic—the ability to make choices based on conscious thought, personal experience, and available information. However, free will is not merely about the freedom to choose; it is intrinsically tied to the accuracy and reliability of the information upon which those choices are made. The absolute law of free will, (...) when correctly understood, dictates that human decision-making must be 100 percent dependent on correct information. Any deviation from this principle, through misinformation, disinformation, or ignorance, constitutes a violation of this law and results in imbalanced, often detrimental outcomes for individuals and society as a whole. -/- Complicating this issue is the modern interpretation and implementation of freedom of speech and expression. While these freedoms are fundamental to democratic societies, they come with inherent flaws when unchecked. The unregulated dissemination of false or misleading information under the guise of free speech creates significant challenges in maintaining the integrity of information and, consequently, free will. -/- The Foundation of Free Will: Correct Information -/- The exercise of genuine free will requires access to accurate, reliable information. Decisions made under false pretenses or incomplete knowledge are not truly free but are instead manipulated or constrained by external distortions. The mind operates like a system that processes inputs (information) to generate outputs (decisions and actions). If the input is flawed, the output will inevitably be compromised. -/- For instance, when individuals base their choices on misinformation—such as health-related decisions influenced by false medical advice—they act under the illusion of free will. However, their actions, though seemingly voluntary, are dictated by incorrect data. This demonstrates that true free will can only exist when individuals are fully informed by verifiable facts. -/- The Law of Karma and the Feedback Mechanism of Information -/- The universal law of karma, which involves the principle of cause and effect, also applies to the relationship between free will and information. Every decision and action causes a ripple effect that influences future outcomes. When decisions are made based on falsehoods, the resulting negative consequences, such as social conflict, health crises, and societal instability, reflect the karmic response to the imbalance created by misinformation. -/- Information functions as a feedback mechanism within societal systems. When this feedback loop is polluted with inaccuracies, the entire system becomes unstable. For example, the propagation of false information about climate change has delayed necessary global actions, causing environmental deterioration. The violation of free will through the spread of misinformation disrupts the natural balance of societal decision-making, leading to long-term consequences that extend beyond individual choices. -/- The Flaws In the Laws of Freedom of Speech and Expression -/- Freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing individuals to voice their opinions, share ideas, and engage in open discourse. However, this freedom is not absolute and, when exercised irresponsibly, can directly violate the absolute law of free will. The flaws within these legal frameworks become evident when misinformation, disinformation, and harmful propaganda are disseminated without accountability. -/- 1. The Spread of Misinformation and Disinformation The unrestricted nature of freedom of speech has led to the proliferation of misinformation across social, political, and scientific domains. False narratives regarding health, such as anti-vaccine propaganda, have endangered public health and undermined free will by providing individuals with inaccurate information on which to base their decisions. -/- 2. The Manipulation of Public Opinion Political propaganda, fake news, and conspiracy theories exploit the principles of free speech to manipulate public perception. Authoritarian regimes and interest groups often use misinformation to influence elections, sway public opinion, and maintain power. When people make decisions based on manipulated narratives, their free will is compromised. -/- 3. The Role of Social Media and Digital Platforms Social media platforms, while fostering global communication, have amplified the spread of misinformation. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement often prioritize sensational or misleading content over factual information. The lack of regulatory measures on these platforms creates an environment where misinformation spreads more rapidly than truth, resulting in collective decision-making that violates the law of balance. -/- 4. The Challenge of Regulation Regulating freedom of speech without infringing upon individual liberties presents a significant challenge. Striking a balance between protecting free expression and preventing the spread of false information requires well-defined legal frameworks, global cooperation, and ethical considerations. -/- 5. Hate Speech and Its Societal Impact The misuse of freedom of speech to propagate hate speech, incite violence, and promote division disrupts societal harmony. Misinformation about certain groups, ethnicities, or religions fosters discrimination and social unrest, further violating the balance required for the proper exercise of free will. -/- The Societal Impact of Misinformation -/- Misinformation has far-reaching effects on societal structures, particularly in democratic systems where public decision-making relies heavily on the availability of correct information. The manipulation of information through propaganda, conspiracy theories, and biased media distorts collective free will, leading to decisions that do not reflect the genuine, informed will of the people. -/- Elections, for instance, are a prime example. When voters are misled by false narratives or deceptive political strategies, their electoral decisions are no longer expressions of true free will. The outcomes of such manipulated decisions often result in societal discord, poor governance, and disillusionment with democratic processes. In this way, misinformation violates the collective free will of entire populations. -/- The Role of Education in Upholding the Absolute Law of Free Will -/- To protect and uphold the absolute law of free will, society must prioritize a holistic educational system that emphasizes critical thinking, information literacy, and scientific inquiry. Education should equip individuals with the ability to discern fact from fiction, understand the sources of information, and recognize the potential biases inherent in various media channels. -/- An educational system grounded in the universal law of balance in nature can act as a safeguard against misinformation. By teaching individuals how to process information through rational, evidence-based methods, we can foster a societal environment where decisions are consistently made based on truth. This, in turn, ensures that free will is exercised in its purest form. -/- The Role of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in Preserving Free Will -/- The rapid advancement of AGI presents both challenges and opportunities regarding the preservation of free will. If AGI systems are designed based on the universal formula that emphasizes accurate information, natural balance, and critical thinking, they can become powerful tools for protecting free will. These systems can help filter misinformation, verify facts, and provide individuals with reliable data upon which to base their decisions. -/- However, the potential misuse of AGI, such as the intentional spread of disinformation for political or economic gain, represents a significant risk. Ensuring that AGI adheres to principles grounded in the universal law of balance and the law of cause and effect is essential to maintaining the integrity of human decision-making. -/- Conclusion -/- The absolute law of free will is inseparable from the requirement for correct information. Any decision made under the influence of misinformation, disinformation, or ignorance represents a fundamental violation of this law. The consequences of such violations are evident in societal conflicts, poor health outcomes, environmental degradation, and governance failures. -/- The flaws Inherent in the laws surrounding freedom of speech and expression further complicate this issue. While these freedoms are essential for societal growth and the exchange of ideas, their misuse creates significant obstacles to the proper exercise of free will. To safeguard free will, society must invest in education, promote information literacy, implement responsible regulations for free speech, and ensure the ethical development of AGI systems. -/- By adhering to the principle that free will is 100 percent dependent on correct information, humanity can create a more stable, balanced, and harmonious society, where individuals and communities alike can make decisions that align with the natural laws governing human behavior and societal development. -/- . (shrink)

Overall, there’s a rich literature on free speech and hate speech. However, there’s been comparatively less discussion on hate speech that brings in empirical psychological and medical evidence on the possible health harms hate speech can have for minorities. I introduce and piece together a set of pre-existing scientific data that’s new to the philosophical literature to help sufficiently establish an argument that governments should ban hate speech. Given the adverse effects hate speech can (...) have on one’s mental and physical health, hate speech causes harm at many times. Since it causes such harm and leads to overridingly negative consequences, the government ought to regulate such speech. (shrink)

The Responsibility of Freedom of Speech and the Role of Media in Propagating Correct Knowledge -/- In modern societies, freedom of speech is often heralded as a fundamental right, allowing individuals to express their thoughts and opinions freely. However, the concept of absolute freedom of speech is not without its flaws. When viewed through the lens of natural laws, including the universal law of balance, the unchecked exercise of speech can lead to societal imbalances. It is (...) essential to recognize that while individuals should be allowed to voice their opinions, this freedom comes with the responsibility to ensure that speech contributes positively to societal harmony, personal growth, and the well-being of others. This responsibility extends beyond individual action and applies to all forms of media, which play a significant role in shaping public discourse and the flow of information. -/- The Concept of Freedom of Speech and its Pitfalls -/- Freedom of speech, in its ideal form, allows individuals to express their ideas and beliefs without fear of censorship or retribution. This principle is grounded in the belief that diverse viewpoints contribute to the flourishing of democratic societies. However, the unrestricted nature of this freedom can also lead to unintended consequences. When individuals or groups disseminate harmful misinformation, spread hate speech, or manipulate public sentiment for selfish gain, the foundational balance within society is disrupted. The unchecked expression of falsehoods or inflammatory rhetoric can create divisions, incite violence, or foster ignorance—outcomes that are contrary to the well-being of individuals and the harmony of society. -/- The spreading of false beliefs, misinformation, or gossip can be especially damaging. Such behavior not only distorts reality but also erodes trust within communities, making it more difficult for people to distinguish between truth and falsehood. False beliefs can lead to irrational fears, biases, or hatred, and when spread, they contribute to the further fragmentation of societies. In the age of digital media, these harmful narratives can quickly go viral, reaching vast audiences before they can be corrected, amplifying their negative impact. -/- From the perspective of the universal law of balance, the free exchange of ideas must be aligned with the greater good, ensuring that speech contributes to constructive discourse and societal progress. Words are powerful, and their impact on both the individual and collective mind can shape reality in profound ways. Therefore, freedom of speech should not be seen as an absolute right devoid of responsibility. Rather, it must be accompanied by an awareness of its potential effects and a commitment to using it to foster understanding, unity, and truth. -/- The Role of Media In Shaping Knowledge -/- Media, whether traditional or digital, plays a central role in how information is disseminated to the public. In today’s interconnected world, media outlets, including news organizations, social media platforms, and content creators, have an unprecedented influence on shaping public opinion. Given this influence, media must be held to high standards of responsibility, as it is the primary vehicle through which society consumes knowledge. -/- The responsibility of the media extends beyond merely reporting facts; it includes the duty to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and relevance of the information shared. Media outlets must prioritize the dissemination of truth, fact-check their sources, and avoid sensationalism that can distort public perception. Misinformation, especially when propagated through powerful media channels, can have lasting consequences on public trust, societal stability, and personal decision-making. The rapid spread of gossip, rumors, or fake news can lead to unnecessary panic, conflict, or even harm, demonstrating the real dangers of unchecked speech. -/- In the age of information overload, the role of the media is to sift through the noise and present knowledge in a balanced, accessible, and responsible manner. This involves not only reporting on events but also offering analysis and context that help the public understand the deeper implications of the information being shared. Media must act as a filter, ensuring that the knowledge people receive aligns with reality, helps individuals make informed decisions, and contributes to the greater good. -/- The Need for Media Literacy and Accountability -/- As media consumers, individuals must also take responsibility for their engagement with information. Media literacy—the ability to critically analyze, evaluate, and interpret media content—is a crucial skill in today’s world. With the proliferation of social media platforms, where misinformation can spread rapidly, it is more important than ever for individuals to be discerning about the sources of information they trust. Education systems worldwide must prioritize media literacy as part of their curricula, teaching students how to identify credible sources, distinguish between fact and opinion, and recognize the potential for manipulation in media messages. -/- For the youth, empowering them to critically engage with media is especially vital. With the rise of social media and peer-to-peer communication, young people are particularly susceptible to the influence of misinformation and gossip. The spread of rumors or false information among peer groups can have serious social consequences, including damaged reputations, broken friendships, and even bullying. It is essential to foster a sense of personal responsibility in the youth by teaching them the importance of verifying information before sharing it and the harmful effects of spreading unverified or negative content. -/- Youth should be empowered to practice empathy and discernment when interacting with information. Schools, families, and communities can collaborate to teach the younger generation about the consequences of gossip and misinformation—how they can harm individuals, societies, and even themselves. Encouraging open dialogue about the ethical use of information and the value of truth can help instill the importance of responsible speech in the youth. By creating a culture that values truth over sensationalism and empathy over gossip, we can work toward a more informed and balanced society. -/- At the same time, media organizations must be held accountable for the content they produce and share. This accountability requires strong ethical guidelines and transparency, ensuring that media outlets prioritize public welfare over profits or political agendas. The role of media is not merely to entertain or persuade but to educate, inform, and serve as a reliable source of knowledge. Failure to adhere to these responsibilities can lead to misinformation, polarization, and the erosion of public trust. -/- The Importance of Legal Laws in Preventing the Spread of False Information -/- While personal responsibility and media literacy are essential, legal frameworks also play a crucial role in curbing the spread of false information. In the Philippines, laws like the Cyber Libel Law (Republic Act No. 10175) serve as vital tools for combating online defamation, false information, and harmful content. This law holds individuals accountable for spreading libelous statements or malicious rumors online, providing a legal recourse for those affected by misinformation. -/- Such legal measures are important because they act as deterrents, encouraging individuals and organizations to think carefully before sharing content that could harm others or society at large. Legal laws like the Cyber Libel Law help ensure that the digital space is not misused for malicious purposes, such as spreading false beliefs, gossip, or misinformation that can cause public harm. These laws serve to protect individuals’ reputations and prevent the viral spread of content that could lead to social unrest or personal injury. -/- Furthermore, legal frameworks can also push media outlets and digital platforms to take more proactive measures in monitoring and controlling the spread of misinformation. By enforcing penalties for the dissemination of harmful content, governments can encourage media organizations and platforms to adopt stricter content policies and invest in fact-checking mechanisms. Legal safeguards not only protect individuals but also promote accountability, ensuring that those responsible for the creation and dissemination of false information are held liable. -/- While freedom of speech is crucial, the presence of legal frameworks ensures that this right is not abused to the detriment of others. These laws help strike a balance between protecting the right to express opinions and maintaining societal harmony by preventing the spread of falsehoods and malicious gossip. -/- The Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Responsibility -/- In light of the universal law of balance, freedom of speech must be exercised with a sense of duty. The right to express oneself must not come at the expense of societal harmony or the well-being of others. Media, as a conduit for knowledge and discourse, must prioritize accuracy, accountability, and ethical standards in its operations. This includes ensuring that the information they share is balanced, relevant, and rooted in truth. -/- At the same time, it is important to recognize that all individuals, including media practitioners, are part of a larger system. Every word spoken, every article written, and every broadcast made contributes to the collective reality we all experience. The impact of these actions ripples out into society, influencing minds, shaping behaviors, and creating a feedback loop that can either strengthen or weaken the fabric of society. By embracing responsibility in speech and media practices, we can help ensure that our collective decisions align with the natural balance of the world around us, fostering a society that values truth, understanding, and mutual respect. -/- Conclusion -/- The concept of freedom of speech, while important, cannot be viewed as a blanket entitlement devoid of responsibility. The power of speech, when unchecked, can disrupt the natural balance of society, leading to harm, division, and ignorance. Media, as a central vehicle for disseminating knowledge, holds a critical responsibility in ensuring that the information shared is accurate, reliable, and serves the greater good. In this context, freedom of speech should be understood as a tool for fostering truth and unity, not as an unregulated license to mislead or divide. -/- Legal frameworks, such as the Cyber Libel Law, provide essential safeguards, holding individuals accountable for the harm caused by false information. By aligning speech and media practices with the principles of balance, responsibility, and truth, society can move toward a more informed, harmonious, and just future. Moreover, empowering the youth to become responsible consumers and sharers of information is essential in cultivating a generation that values truth, empathy, and ethical communication, ultimately promoting a balanced and well-informed society. -/- . (shrink)

A growing body of work in free speech theory is interested in the nature of counterspeech, i.e. speech that aims to counteract the effects of harmful speech. Counterspeech is usually defined in opposition to legal responses to harmful speech, which try to prevent such speech from occurring in the first place. In this paper we challenge this way of carving up the conceptual terrain. Instead, we argue that our main classificatory division, in theorising (...) responses to harmful speech, should be between pro-discursive and anti-discursive responses. Some legal responses to harmful speech, so we argue, make a positive discursive contribution in their own right. That is, legal restrictions on harmful speech can have a function that is importantly similar to speech that aims at countering the effects of harmful speech. (shrink)

Counterspeech is communication that tries to counteract potential harm brought about by other speech. Theoretical interest in counterspeech partly derives from a libertarian ideal – as captured in the claim that the solution to bad speech is more speech – and partly from a recognition that well-meaning attempts to counteract harm through speech can easily misfire or backfire. Here we survey recent work on the question of what makes counterspeech effective at remedying or preventing harm, in (...) those cases where it is effective, as well as work investigating when and why there is a duty to engage in counterspeech. We suggest that the most fruitful area for philosophical inquiry on this topic, currently, relates to the questions about efficacy. Specifically, we argue that there is a need for better frameworks for conceptualizing the efficacy of counterspeech. Philosophers have collaborative work to do, alongside social scientists, in developing these frameworks. (shrink)

Words change meaning, usually in unpredictable ways. But some words’ meanings are revised intentionally. Revisionary projects are normally put forward in the service of some purpose – some serve specific goals of inquiry, and others serve ethical, political or social aims. Revisionist projects can ameliorate meanings, but they can also pervert. In this paper, I want to draw attention to the dangers of meaning perversions, and argue that the self-declared goodness of a revisionist project doesn’t suffice to avoid meaning perversions. (...) The road to Hell, or to horrors on Earth, is paved with good intentions. Finally and more importantly, I want to demarcate what meaning perversions are. This, I hope, can help us assess the moral and political legitimacy of revisionary projects. (shrink)

In this article I analyse two complaints of white vilification, which are increasingly occurring in Australia. I argue that, though the complainants (and white people generally) are not harmed by such racialized speech, the complainants in fact harm Australians of colour through these utterances. These complaints can both cause and constitute at least two forms of epistemic injustice (willful hermeneutical ignorance and comparative credibility excess). Further, I argue that the complaints are grounded in a dual misrecognition: the complainants misrecognize (...) themselves in their own privileged racial specificity, and they misrecognize others in their own marginal racial specificity. Such misrecognition preserves the cultural imperialism of Australia’s dominant social imaginary—a means of oppression that perpetuates epistemic insensitivity.Bringing this dual misrecognition to light best captures the indignity that is suffered by the victims of the aforementioned epistemic injustices. I argue that it is only when we truly recognize difference in its own terms, shifting the dominant social imaginary, that “mainstream Australians”can do their part in bringing about a just society. (shrink)