Results for 'free speech'

992 found
Order:
  1. For Free Speech, “Religious Offense,” and “Undermining Self-Respect”: A Reply to Bonotti and Seglow.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Heckling, Free Speech, and Freedom of Association.Emily McTernan & Robert Mark Simpson - 2023 - Mind 133 (529):117-142.
    People sometimes use speech to interfere with other people’s speech, as in the case of a heckler sabotaging a lecture with constant interjections. Some people claim that such interference infringes upon free speech. Against this view, we argue that where competing speakers in a public forum both have an interest in speaking, free speech principles should not automatically give priority to the ‘official’ speaker. Given the ideals underlying free speech, heckling speech (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4. Disagreement and Free Speech.Sebastien Bishop & Robert Mark Simpson - forthcoming - In Maria Baghramian, Adam Carter & R. Rowland (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Disagreement. New York: Routledge.
    This chapter examines two ways in which liberal thinkers have appealed to claims about disagreement in order to defend a principle of free speech. One argument, from Mill, says that free speech is a necessary condition for healthy disagreement, and that healthy disagreement is conducive to human flourishing. The other argument says that in a community of people who disagree about questions of value, free speech is a necessary condition of legitimate democratic government. We (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Should We Unbundle Free Speech and Press Freedom?Robert Mark Simpson & Damien Storey - 2023 - In Carl Fox & Joe Saunders (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy and Media Ethics. New York: Routledge. pp. 69-80.
    This paper presents an account of the ethical and conceptual relationship between free speech and press freedom. Many authors have argued that, despite there being some common ground between them, these two liberties should be treated as properly distinct, both theoretically and practically. The core of the argument, for this “unbundling” approach, is that conflating free speech and press freedom makes it too easy for reasonable democratic regulations on press freedom to be portrayed, by their opponents, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7. Epistemic obligations and free speech.Boyd Millar - forthcoming - Analytic Philosophy.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Why Moral Rights of Free Speech for Business Corporations Cannot Be Justified.Ava Thomas Wright - 2021 - Southwest Philosophy Review 37 (1):187-198.
    In this paper, I develop two philosophically suggestive arguments that the late Justice Stevens made in Citizens United against the idea that business corporations have free speech rights. First, (1) while business corporations conceived as real entities are capable of a thin agency conceptually sufficient for moral rights, I argue that they fail to clear important justificatory hurdles imposed by interest or choice theories of rights. Business corporations conceived as real entities lack an interest in their personal security; (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Online Masquerade: Redesigning the Internet for Free Speech Through the Use of Pseudonyms.Carissa Véliz - 2018 - 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 (...) and high costs (appropriate repercussions) for undesirable speech. If we practice either full anonymity or identifiability, we end up having either low or high costs in all online contexts and for all kinds of speech. I argue that free speech is compatible with instituting costs in the form of repercussions and penalties for controversial and unacceptable speech. Costs can minimise the risks of anonymity by providing a reasonable degree of accountability. Pseudonymity is a tool that can help us regulate those costs while furthering free speech. This article argues that, in order to redesign the Internet to better serve free speech, we should shape much of it to resemble an online masquerade. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  10. The ethics of free speech.Mary Kate McGowan - 2010 - In John Skorupski (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Ethics. Routledge. pp. 769-780.
    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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  11. The autonomy defense of free speech.Susan J. Brison - 1998 - Ethics 108 (2):312-339.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   58 citations  
  12. The Cost of Free Speech: Pornography, Hate Speech, and Their Challenge to Liberalism.Abigail Levin - 2010 - Palgrave-Macmillan.
    The distinctly contemporary proliferation of pornography and hate speech poses a challenge to liberalism's traditional ideal of a 'marketplace of ideas' facilitated by state neutrality about the content of speech. This new study argues that the liberal state ought to depart from neutrality to meet this challenge.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  13. 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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  15. The Free Speech Century Lee C. Bollinger & Geoffrey R. Stone, 2018 New York, Oxford University Press. xvi + 356 pp, $99.00 (hb) $21.95. [REVIEW]Mark Satta - 2019 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 37 (2):332-334.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. Toleration, Respect for Persons, and the Free Speech Right to do Moral Wrong.Kristian Skagen Ekeli - 2022 - In Mitja Sardoc (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 149-172.
    The purpose of this chapter is to consider the question of whether respect for persons requires toleration of the expression of any extremist political or religious viewpoint within public discourse. The starting point of my discussion is Steven Heyman and Jonathan Quong’s interesting defences of a negative answer to this question. They argue that respect for persons requires that liberal democracies should not tolerate the public expression of extremist speech that can be regarded as recognition-denying or respect-denying speech (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  46
    Lack of Consensus About Free Speech on Campus Is a Virtue. [REVIEW]Vicente Medina - 2023 - Chronicle of Higher Education:1-1.
    I doubt that we will ever achieve a consensus on the value and scope of free speech on colleges campuses. In a liberal democracy, like ours, that is a virtue rather than a vice.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Going Viral: Vaccines, Free Speech, and the Harm Principle.Miles Unterreiner - 2016 - Journal of Practical Ethics 4 (1).
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21. On Racist Hate Speech and the Scope of a Free Speech Principle.Mary Kate McGowan & Ishani Maitra - 2009 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):343-372.
    In this paper, we argue that to properly understand our commitment to a principle of free speech, we must pay attention to what should count as speech for the purposes of such a principle. We defend the view that ‘speech’ here should be a technical term, with something other than its ordinary sense. We then offer a partial characterization of this technical sense. We contrast our view with some influential views about free speech , (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  22. Sapienti os in corde, stulto cor in ore esse – Johann Gottlieb Heineccius on natural duties concerning free thought and free speech.Katerina Mihaylova - forthcoming - In Frank Grunert & Knud Haakonssen (eds.), Love as the Principle of Natural Law. The Natural Law Theory of Johann Gottlieb Heineccius and its Contexts. Leiden, Niederlande:
    In his "Elementa Iuris Naturae et Gentium" Johann Gottlieb Heineccius presents a unique account of love as the principle of natural law, referring to the main concern of early modern protestant theories of natural law: the importance of securing subjective rights by a law. Heineccius accepts the universal character of subjective rights derived from human nature, claiming their protection as natural duties required by a law. This chapter provides an attempt to explain the specific ways in which Heineccius deals with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Weighing Words: On the Governmentality of Free Speech.Muhammad Ali Nasir - 2016 - Social and Legal Studies 25 (1).
    The article explores the regulatory aspect of the right to freedom of expression. It focuses on human rights case law to see how the guarantee of this right considers subjects, who are required to be free in specific ways in order to exercise their freedoms aptly.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  24. Controversy Over Gender Differences and Free Speech at Google.Garrett Pendergraft - 2019 - SAGE Business Cases.
    In August 2017, Google executives found themselves in a difficult position. An internal memo written by a disgruntled software engineer, James Damore, had just gone viral. In this memo, Damore claimed that the relatively small number of women in the tech industry was partly due to biological factors, and that many of Google’s diversity efforts were therefore counterproductive. The contents of this memo were offensive to many (and thus were having a negative impact on the overall workplace environment), but the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. 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, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27. Democratic legitimacy, political speech and viewpoint neutrality.Kristian Skagen Ekeli - 2021 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 47 (6):723-752.
    The purpose of this article is to consider the question of whether democratic legitimacy requires viewpoint neutrality with regard to political speech – including extremist political speech, such as hate speech. The starting point of my discussion is Jeremy Waldron’s negative answer to this question. He argues that it is permissible for liberal democracies to ban certain extremist viewpoints – such as vituperative hate speech – because such viewpoint-based restrictions protect the dignity of persons and a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  28. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  29. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30. Corporate Speech in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.Kirk Ludwig - 2016 - SpazioFilosofico 16:47-79.
    In its January 20th, 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court ruled that certain restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations for political advocacy violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, which provides that “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Justice Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31. Compossible Rights Must Restrict Speech.John T. H. Wong - 2022 - Dissertation, University of Hong Kong
    This paper discusses why speech regulations are logically necessary for any account of a moral right to free speech. My argument for limiting the right to free speech (and more widely any right to freedom) will be grounded in compossibility. Rights to freedom, formally speaking, are claims by an agent that other people not interfere with them; a compossible set of rights is one where the domains of permissible actions–permitted by each claim (and its correlative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Hate Speech and the Problems of Agency: A Critique of Butler.Kory Schaff - 2000 - Social Philosophy Today 16:185-201.
    At the center of the hate speech controversy is the question whether it constitutes conduct. If hate speech is not conduct, then restricting it runs counter to free speech. But even if it could be shown that it is a kind of conduct, complicated questions arise. Does it necessarily follow that we restrict speech? Practically speaking, can speech even be restricted, either through new legislation or the enforcement of existing laws regulating conduct? Are measures (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33. University Governance and Campus Speech.L. W. Sumner - manuscript
    Hate speech, understood broadly, is any form of expression intended to arouse hatred or contempt toward members of a particular social group. When university administrators have reason to believe that a planned speaking event on campus may feature hate speech (at least in the eyes of some), how should they respond? In this paper I address this question as it arises for Canadian universities. I argue that, where the regulation of campus speech is concerned, the right course (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. 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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. Un-Ringing the Bell: McGowan on Oppressive Speech and The Asymmetric Pliability of Conversations.Robert Mark Simpson - 2013 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (3):555-575.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  36. John Searle: From speech acts to social reality.Barry Smith - 2003 - In John Searle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-33.
    We provide an overview of Searle's contributions to speech act theory and the ontology of social reality, focusing on his theory of constitutive rules. In early versions of this theory, Searle proposed that all such rules have the form 'X counts as Y in context C' formula – as for example when Barack Obama (X) counts as President of the United States (Y) in the context of US political affairs. Crucially, the X and the Y terms are here identical. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  37. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  39. What is hate speech? The case for a corpus approach.Maxime Lepoutre, Sara Vilar-Lluch, Emma Borg & Nat Hansen - forthcoming - Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-34.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. State Speech as a Response to Hate Speech: Assessing ‘Transformative Liberalism’.Paul Billingham - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (3):639-655.
    ‘Transformative liberals’ believe that the state should use its non-coercive capacities to counter hateful speech and practices, by seeking to transform the views of those who hold hateful and discriminatory beliefs. This paper critically assesses transformative liberalism, with a particular focus on the theory developed by Corey Brettschneider. For Brettschneider, the state should engage in ‘democratic persuasion’ by speaking out against views that are incompatible with the ideal of free and equal citizenship, and refusing to fund or subsidise (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. The speech act as an act of knowing.Jesús Gerardo Martínez del Castillo - 2015 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics 3 (6-1):31-38.
    Language is nothing but human subjects in as much as they speak, say and know. Language is something coming from the inside of the speaking subject manifest in the meaningful intentional purpose of the individual speaker. A language, on the contrary, is something coming from the outside, from the speech community, something offered to the speaking subject from the tradition in the technique of speaking. The speech act is nothing but the development of an intuition by the subject (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  42. Fraudulent Advertising: A Mere Speech Act or a Type of Theft?Pavel Slutskiy - unknown - Libertarian Papers 8.
    Libertarian philosophy asserts that only the initiation of physical force against persons or property, or the threat thereof, is inherently illegitimate. A corollary to this assertion is that all forms of speech, including fraudulent advertising, are not invasive and therefore should be considered legitimate. On the other hand, fraudulent advertising can be viewed as implicit theft under the theory of contract: if a seller accepts money knowing that his product does not have some of its advertised characteristics, he acquires (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. ‘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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  44. 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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  45. Pornography and Speech Act Theory – An In-Depth Survey.Áron Dombrovszki - 2021 - Elpis 14 (1):9-26.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. Review: Seana Valentine Shiffrin, Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law. [REVIEW]Mary Kate McGowan - 2016 - Ethics 126 (2):536-541.
    This is a review of Shiffrin's _Speech Matters_.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  94
    Kant’s Political Enlightenment: Free Public Use of Reason as Self-discipline.Roberta Pasquarè - 2023 - SHS Web of Conferences 161.
    According to recent scholarship, Kant’s "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" and the introductory section to "The Conflict of the Faculties" are masterpieces of philosophical rhetoric. The philosophical significance of these texts lies in establishing the free public use of reason as a tool to discipline political power through pure practical reason, and the rhetorical mastery consists in presenting the free public use of reason as a means to satisfy the ruler’s pragmatic practical reason. Elaborating on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48. “Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech”.Rebecca Ruth Gould - 2018 - Law, Culture and the Humanities 1 (online first).
    The challenge posed by legal indeterminacy to legal legitimacy has generally been considered from points of view internal to the law and its application. But what becomes of legal legitimacy when the legal status of a given norm is itself a matter of contestation? This article, the first extended scholarly treatment of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s new definition of antisemitism, pursues this question by examining recent applications of the IHRA definition within the UK following its adoption by the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  49. Universities and other Institutions – not Hate Speech Laws – are a threat to Freedom of Political Speech.Sigri Gaïni - 2022 - Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 1:5-19.
    _One of the strongest arguments against hate speech legislation is the so-called Argument from Political Speech. This argument problematizes the restrictions that might be placed on political opinions or political critique when these opinions are expressed in a way which can be interpreted as ‘hateful’ towards minority groups. One of the strongest free speech scholars opposing hate speech legislation is Ronald Dworkin, who stresses that having restrictions on hate speech is, in fact, illegitimate in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. The Mental and Physical Health Argument Against Hate Speech.John Park - 2023 - Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics 9:13-34.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 992