6 found
Order:
  1. Counterspeech.Bianca Cepollaro, Maxime Lepoutre & Robert Mark Simpson - 2022 - Philosophy Compass 18 (1):e12890.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  2. Hate Speech in Public Discourse: A Pessimistic Defense of Counterspeech.Maxime Lepoutre - 2017 - Social Theory and Practice 43 (4):851-883.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  3. The Red Mist.Maxime Charles Lepoutre - 2023 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 24 (1).
    An influential critique of anger holds that anger comes at an important epistemic cost. In particular, feeling angry typically makes risk less visible to us. This is anger’s ‘red mist.’ These epistemic costs, critics suggest, arguably outweigh the epistemic benefits commonly ascribed to anger. This essay argues that the epistemic critique of anger is importantly misleading. This is not because it underestimates anger’s epistemic benefits, but rather because it overlooks the fact that anger’s red mist performs a crucial moral function. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Political Understanding.Maxime C. Lepoutre - 2022 - British Journal of Political Science 1 (1).
    Public opinion research has shown that voters accept many falsehoods about politics. This observation is widely considered troubling for democracy—and especially participatory ideals of democracy. I argue that this influential narrative is nevertheless flawed, because it misunderstands the nature of political understanding. Drawing on philosophical examinations of scientific modelling, I demonstrate that accepting falsehoods within one’s model of political reality is compatible with—and indeed can positively enhance—one’s understanding of that reality. Thus, the observation that voters accept many political falsehoods does (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5. What is Hate Speech? The Case for a Corpus Approach.Maxime Lepoutre, Sara Vilar-Lluch, Emma Borg & Nat Hansen - 2024 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 18 (2):397-430.
    Contemporary public discourse is saturated with speech that vilifies and incites hatred or violence against vulnerable groups. The term “hate speech” has emerged in legal circles and in ordinary language to refer to these communicative acts. But legal theorists and philosophers disagree over how to define this term. This paper makes the case for, and subsequently develops, the first corpus-based analysis of the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” We begin by demonstrating that key interpretive and moral disputes surrounding hate speech (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Narrative Counterspeech.Maxime C. Lepoutre - forthcoming - Political Studies.
    The proliferation of conspiracy theories poses a significant threat to democratic decision-making. To counter this threat, many political theorists advocate countering conspiracy theories with ‘more speech’ (or ‘counterspeech’). Yet conspiracy theories are notoriously resistant to counterspeech. This article aims to conceptualise and defend a novel form of counterspeech – narrative counterspeech – that is singularly well-placed to overcome this resistance. My argument proceeds in three steps. First, I argue that conspiracy theories pose a special problem for counterspeech for three interconnected (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark