大学和其他机构——而不是仇恨言论法——是对政治言论自由的威胁

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Etikk I Praksis Pub Date : 2022-06-23 DOI:10.5324/eip.v16i1.4826
Sigri Gaïni
{"title":"大学和其他机构——而不是仇恨言论法——是对政治言论自由的威胁","authors":"Sigri Gaïni","doi":"10.5324/eip.v16i1.4826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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 a liberal democracy. The right to express oneself freely concerning any political decision is, according to Dworkin, a core democratic principle; it is what self-governance – and hence liberal democracies – are built upon. Dworkin and many other free speech scholars based in the United States see hate speech legislation as a threat to expressing oneself freely and critically. I argue that Dworkin and other US-based free speech scholars tend to overlook actual hate speech legislation in countries where such laws have been implemented and have functioned for decades. Furthermore, I argue that the real threat against political speech lies not in hate speech legislation but rather outside of the law, namely, in private institutions such as universities and museums. Restrictions on political speech in various societal circumstances have been on the rise over the last decades – first and foremost in the US. I analyse why these restrictions on political speech are more widespread in the only Western country without laws against hate speech than they are in countries with implemented hate speech laws.\nKeywords: political speech, hate speech, hate speech legislation, private institu-tions, universities, USA","PeriodicalId":42362,"journal":{"name":"Etikk I Praksis","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Universities and other Institutions – not Hate Speech Laws – are a threat to Freedom of Political Speech\",\"authors\":\"Sigri Gaïni\",\"doi\":\"10.5324/eip.v16i1.4826\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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 a liberal democracy. The right to express oneself freely concerning any political decision is, according to Dworkin, a core democratic principle; it is what self-governance – and hence liberal democracies – are built upon. Dworkin and many other free speech scholars based in the United States see hate speech legislation as a threat to expressing oneself freely and critically. I argue that Dworkin and other US-based free speech scholars tend to overlook actual hate speech legislation in countries where such laws have been implemented and have functioned for decades. Furthermore, I argue that the real threat against political speech lies not in hate speech legislation but rather outside of the law, namely, in private institutions such as universities and museums. Restrictions on political speech in various societal circumstances have been on the rise over the last decades – first and foremost in the US. I analyse why these restrictions on political speech are more widespread in the only Western country without laws against hate speech than they are in countries with implemented hate speech laws.\\nKeywords: political speech, hate speech, hate speech legislation, private institu-tions, universities, USA\",\"PeriodicalId\":42362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Etikk I Praksis\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Etikk I Praksis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v16i1.4826\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etikk I Praksis","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v16i1.4826","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

反对仇恨言论立法的最有力论据之一是所谓的“政治言论论”。当政治观点或政治批评以一种可以被解释为对少数群体“仇恨”的方式表达时,这种限制可能会受到质疑。罗纳德·德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)是反对仇恨言论立法的最坚定的言论自由学者之一,他强调,在自由民主国家,对仇恨言论进行限制实际上是非法的。德沃金认为,对任何政治决策自由表达意见的权利是民主的核心原则;这是自治——因而也是自由民主——的基础。德沃金和美国的许多其他言论自由学者认为,仇恨言论立法是对自由和批判地表达自己的威胁。我认为,德沃金和其他美国的言论自由学者往往忽视了那些已经实施并发挥了几十年作用的国家的实际仇恨言论立法。此外,我认为,对政治言论的真正威胁不在于仇恨言论立法,而在于法律之外,即大学和博物馆等私人机构。在过去的几十年里,各种社会环境下对政治言论的限制一直在增加——首先是在美国。我分析了为什么这些对政治言论的限制在唯一没有禁止仇恨言论法律的西方国家比在实施仇恨言论法律的国家更为普遍。关键词:政治言论,仇恨言论,仇恨言论立法,私立机构,大学,美国
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
Universities and other Institutions – not Hate Speech Laws – are a threat to Freedom of Political Speech
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 a liberal democracy. The right to express oneself freely concerning any political decision is, according to Dworkin, a core democratic principle; it is what self-governance – and hence liberal democracies – are built upon. Dworkin and many other free speech scholars based in the United States see hate speech legislation as a threat to expressing oneself freely and critically. I argue that Dworkin and other US-based free speech scholars tend to overlook actual hate speech legislation in countries where such laws have been implemented and have functioned for decades. Furthermore, I argue that the real threat against political speech lies not in hate speech legislation but rather outside of the law, namely, in private institutions such as universities and museums. Restrictions on political speech in various societal circumstances have been on the rise over the last decades – first and foremost in the US. I analyse why these restrictions on political speech are more widespread in the only Western country without laws against hate speech than they are in countries with implemented hate speech laws. Keywords: political speech, hate speech, hate speech legislation, private institu-tions, universities, USA
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
Etikk I Praksis
Etikk I Praksis Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ethical challenges of social work in Spain during COVID-19 LGBTIQ+ prioritization in refugee admissions – The case of Norway Stakeholder Inclusion as the Research Council of Norway’s Silver Bullet Moral sensitivity, moral distress and moral functioning Nazism, Genocide and the Threat of The Global West. Russian Moral Justification of War in Ukraine
×
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