言论自由原则几乎无关紧要

A. Koppelman
{"title":"言论自由原则几乎无关紧要","authors":"A. Koppelman","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197500989.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some have claimed that accommodation is mandated by free speech. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado case, the Supreme Court was offered an impressive array of variations on this claim. Mostly they are bad arguments. Although merchants have the right to announce their disagreement with the law, speech principles cannot resolve the controversy. Free speech could be construed to protect businesses that produce expressive media, such as (some) photographers, but it can’t intelligibly be stretched to help others with equally pressing conscience claims, such as bakers. It thus addresses the issue in a morally arbitrary way.","PeriodicalId":149656,"journal":{"name":"Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Free speech principles are barely relevant\",\"authors\":\"A. Koppelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197500989.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Some have claimed that accommodation is mandated by free speech. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado case, the Supreme Court was offered an impressive array of variations on this claim. Mostly they are bad arguments. Although merchants have the right to announce their disagreement with the law, speech principles cannot resolve the controversy. Free speech could be construed to protect businesses that produce expressive media, such as (some) photographers, but it can’t intelligibly be stretched to help others with equally pressing conscience claims, such as bakers. It thus addresses the issue in a morally arbitrary way.\",\"PeriodicalId\":149656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197500989.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197500989.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一些人声称迁就是言论自由的要求。在杰作蛋糕店诉科罗拉多州案中,最高法院就这一主张提出了一系列令人印象深刻的变化。大多数都是糟糕的论点。虽然商家有权发表对法律的异议,但言论原则并不能解决争议。言论自由可以被解释为保护生产表达媒体的企业,比如(一些)摄影师,但它不能被理解地延伸到帮助其他同样迫切需要良心的人,比如面包师。因此,它以一种道德武断的方式解决了这个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Free speech principles are barely relevant
Some have claimed that accommodation is mandated by free speech. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado case, the Supreme Court was offered an impressive array of variations on this claim. Mostly they are bad arguments. Although merchants have the right to announce their disagreement with the law, speech principles cannot resolve the controversy. Free speech could be construed to protect businesses that produce expressive media, such as (some) photographers, but it can’t intelligibly be stretched to help others with equally pressing conscience claims, such as bakers. It thus addresses the issue in a morally arbitrary way.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Discrimination law can tolerate exceptions There are many ways to compromise “Religion always wins” rules are bad for religious liberty Worsening the divisions that helped elect Trump A right to be weird is a good reason to give religion special treatment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1