Search results for 'free speech' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. George Free (1990). Language, Speech and Writing: Merleau-Ponty and Derrida on Saussure. [REVIEW] Human Studies 13 (4):293 - 307.score: 240.0
  2. Helga Varden (2010). A Kantian Conception of Free Speech. In Deidre Golash (ed.), Free Speech in a Diverse World. Springer.score: 210.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Maleiha Malik (2011). Religious Freedom, Free Speech and Equality: Conflict or Cohesion? Res Publica 17 (1):21-40.score: 180.0
    There have recently been a number of high profile political incidents, and legal cases, that raise questions about hate speech. At the same time, the tensions, and perceived conflicts, between religion and sexuality have become controversial topics. This paper considers the relationship between religious freedom, free speech and equality through an analysis of recent case law in Great Britain, Canada and the United States. The paper starts with a discussion of how conflicts between these values arise in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Mary Lyn Stoll (2005). Corporate Rights to Free Speech? Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):261 - 269.score: 180.0
    . Although the courts have ruled that companies are legal persons, they have not yet made clear the extent to which political free speech for corporations is limited by the strictures legitimately placed upon corporate commercial speech. I explore the question of whether or not companies can properly be said to have the right to civil free speech or whether corporate speech is always de facto commercial speech not subject to the same sorts (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Andrés Moles (2007). Autonomy, Free Speech and Automatic Behaviour. Res Publica 13 (1):53-75.score: 180.0
    One of the strongest defences of free speech holds that autonomy requires the protection of speech. In this paper I examine five conditions that autonomy must satisfy. I survey recent research in social psychology regarding automatic behaviour, and a challenge to autonomy is articulated. I argue that a plausible strategy for neutralising some of the autonomy-threatening automatic responses consists in avoiding the exposure to the environmental features that trigger them. If this is so, we can good autonomy-based (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Zoltan Miklosi (2014). A Puzzle About Free Speech, Legitimacy, and Countermajoritarian Constraints. Res Publica 20 (1):27-43.score: 180.0
    This paper argues that there is a tension between two central features of Dworkin’s partnership conception of democracy. The conception holds, on the one hand, that it is a necessary condition of the legitimacy of the decisions of a political majority that every member of the political community has a very robust right to publicly criticize those decisions. A plausible interpretation of this argument is that free political speech constitutes a normatively privileged vehicle for political minorities to become (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. S. Holm (2004). Free Speech, Democracy, and Eugenics. Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):519 - 519.score: 150.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Patricia White (1996). Having a Voice and Getting a Hearing: An Educational Perspective on Free Speech in a Plural Society. Studies in Philosophy and Education 15 (1-2):201-208.score: 150.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David A. J. Richards (1999). Free Speech and the Politics of Identity. Oxford University Press.score: 132.0
    Free Speech and the Politics of Identity challenges the scholarly view as well as the dominant legal view outside the United States that the right of free speech may reasonably be traded off in pursuit of justice to stigmatized minorities. The book's innovative normative and interpretative methodology calls for a new departure in comparative public law, in which all states responsibly address their common problems, not only of inadequate protection of free speech, but also (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Uladzislau Belavusau (2010). Judicial Epistemology of Free Speech Through Ancient Lenses. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 23 (2):165-183.score: 132.0
    The article is the author’s endeavor to reconstruct the semiotic conflict in the transatlantic legal appraisal of hate speech (between the USA and Europe) through Ancient Greek concepts of παρρησία (parrhēsia) and ισηγορία (isēgoria). The US Supreme Court case law on the First Amendment to American Constitution is, therefore, counter-balanced vis-à-vis la jurisprudence de Strasbourg on Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The author suggests that an adequate comprehension of the contemporary constitutional concepts of the right (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Richard McDonough (1989). A Defence of Free Speech. In Cedric Pan Jaganathan Muraleenathan (ed.), Thinking about Democracy. 61-84.score: 132.0
    The paper gives a spirited defence of freedom of speech as the best means for attaining truth in a society and argues that the remedy for bad or false speech is not to curtail free speech but more free speech.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Caroline West (2003). The Free Speech Argument Against Pornography. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33 (3):391 - 422.score: 120.0
    It is widely held that free speech is a distinctive and privileged social kind. But what is free speech? In particular, is there any unified phenomenon that is both free speech and which is worthy of the special value traditionally attached to free speech? We argue that a descendent of the classic Millian justification of free speech is in fact a justification of a more general social condition; and, via an (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. David Braddon-Mitchell & Caroline West (2004). What is Free Speech? Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (4):437-460.score: 120.0
    It is widely held that free speech is a distinctive and privileged social kind. But what is free speech? In particular, is there any unified phenomenon that is both free speech and which is worthy of the special value traditionally attached to free speech? We argue that a descendent of the classic Millian justification of free speech is in fact a justification of a more general social condition; and, via an (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. David Archard (2014). Insults, Free Speech and Offensiveness. Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):127-141.score: 120.0
    This article examines what is wrong with some expressive acts, ‘insults’. Their putative wrongfulness is distinguished from the causing of indirect harms, aggregated harms, contextual harms, and damaging misrepresentations. The article clarifies what insults are, making use of work by Neu and Austin, and argues that their wrongfulness cannot lie in the hurt that is caused to those at whom such acts are directed. Rather it must lie in what they seek to do, namely to denigrate the other. The causing (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Matteo Bonotti (forthcoming). Political Liberalism, Free Speech and Public Reason. European Journal of Political Theory:1474885114538257.score: 120.0
    In this paper, I critically assess John Rawls's repeated claim that the duty of civility is only a moral duty and should not be enforced by law. In the first part of the paper, I examine and reject the view that Rawls's position may be due to the practical difficulties that the legal enforcement of the duty of civility might entail. I thus claim that Rawls's position must be driven by deeper normative reasons grounded in a conception of free (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Nigel Warburton (2009). Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford.score: 120.0
    'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' This slogan, attributed to Voltaire, is frequently quoted by defenders of free speech. Yet it is rare to find anyone prepared to defend all expression in every circumstance, especially if the views expressed incite violence. So where do the limits lie? What is the real value of free speech? Here, Nigel Warburton offers a concise guide to important questions (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Ishani Maitra & Mary Kate McGowan (2007). The Limits of Free Speech: Pornography and the Question of Coverage. Legal Theory 13 (1):41-68.score: 120.0
    Many liberal societies are deeply committed to freedom of speech. This commitment is so entrenched that when it seems to come into conflict with other commitments (e.g., gender equality), it is often argued that the commitment to speech must trump the other commitments. In this paper, we argue that a proper understanding of our commitment to free speech requires being clear about what should count as speech for these purposes. On the approach we defend, should (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. J. W. Tate (2008). Free Speech or Equal Respect?: Liberalism's Competing Values. Philosophy and Social Criticism 34 (9):987-1020.score: 120.0
    This article looks at liberalism as a political tradition encompassing competing and, at times, incommensurable values. It looks in particular at the potential conflict between the values of free speech and equal respect. Both of these are foundational values for liberalism, in the sense that they arise as normative ideals from the very inception of the liberal tradition itself. Yet from the perspective of this tradition, it is by no means clear which of these values should be prioritized (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Patrick Lee Plaisance (2003). Justifications for Our Free Speech. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):211-224.score: 120.0
    In two influential articles setting forth his arguments against restrictions on free expression in the 1970s, Harvard philosopher T. M. Scanlon suggested and later rejected the notion that autonomous agency ought to be a primary constraint on most justifications used to restrict speech. The concept of autonomy, he said, was “notoriously vague and slippery” as a basis for judging free-speech restrictions. Instead, Scanlon argued that free expression—and proposed restrictions on it—should be justified in terms of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Jessica Litman (1999). Electronic Commerce and Free Speech. Ethics and Information Technology 1 (3):213-225.score: 120.0
    For commercial purveyors of digital speech, information and entertainment, the biggest threat posed by the Internet isn''t the threat of piracy, but the threat posed by free speech -- speech that doesn''t cost any money. Free speech has the potential to squeeze out expensive speech. A glut of high quality free stuff has the potential to run companies in the business of selling speech out of business. We haven''t had to worry (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Ishani Maitra, On Racist Hate Speech and the Scope of a Free Speech Principle.score: 120.0
    As a liberal society, we are deeply committed to a principle of free speech. In fact, this commitment is so entrenched that it often seems to trump other very important liberal values, such as equality. Critical race theorists, among others, have argued that (some) racist hate speech ought to be regulated because it harms racial minorities in ways that are incompatible with racial equality, and so, in ways that a liberal society ought to prevent. A standard liberal (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Robert Mark Simpson (2013). Intellectual Agency and Responsibility for Belief in Free-Speech Theory. Legal Theory 19 (3):307-330.score: 120.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla (2006). Rhetoric, Induction, and the Free Speech Dilemma. Philosophy of Science 73 (2):175-193.score: 120.0
    Scientists can choose different claims as interpretations of the results of their research. Scientific rhetoric is understood as the attempt to make those claims most beneficial for the scientists' interests. A rational choice, game-theoretic model is developed to analyze how this choice can be made and to assess it from a normative point of view. The main conclusion is that `social' interests (pursuit of recognition) may conflict with `cognitive' ones when no constraints are put on the choices of the authors (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Alan Haworth (1998). Free Speech. Routledge.score: 120.0
    Free Speech is a philosophical treatment of a topic which is of immense importance to all of us. Writing with great clarity, wit, and genuine concern, Alan Haworth situates the main arguments for free speech by tracing their relationship to contemporary debates in politics and political philosophy, and their historical roots to earlier controversies over religious toleration. Free Speech will appeal to anyone with an interest in philosophy, politics and current affairs.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Julie Van Camp, How Ontology Saved Free Speech in Cyberspace.score: 120.0
    Reno v. ACLU , the 1997 landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court providing sweeping protection to speech on the Internet, is usually discussed in terms of familiar First Amendment issues. Little noticed in the decision is the significance of the ontological assumptions of the justices in their first visit to cyberspace. I analyze the apparent awareness of the Supreme Court of ontological issues and problems with their approaches. I also argue that their current ontological assumptions have left (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. J. K. Miles (2012). A Perfectionist Defense of Free Speech. Social Theory and Practice 38 (2):213-230.score: 120.0
    It is often said that if free speech means anything it means freedom for the thought we hate. This core idea is generally referred to as “viewpoint neutrality” and is consistent with the liberal intuition that governments should remain neutral with regard to conceptions of the good life. None of the traditional defenses of free speech seem to secure viewpoint neutrality, however. Instead, each justification leaves room to censor some viewpoints. Ironically my defense of viewpoint neutrality (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Andrew F. March (2012). Speech and the Sacred: Does the Defense of Free Speech Rest on a Mistake About Religion? Political Theory 40 (3):319 - 346.score: 114.0
    Some scholars have argued that religiously injurious speech poses a serious problem for secular liberal thought. It has been suggested that secular liberal thought and political practice often misrecognize the nature of the injury involved in speech that violates the sacred and that much secular thought about religious injury (and free exercise more generally) is premised on unacknowledged Protestant conceptions of what real religion is. In this essay, I argue against the ideas that secular liberalism tends to (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Irina Knopp (2011). United States V Stevens: Gnawing Away at Freedom of Speech or Paving the Way for Animal Rights? [REVIEW] International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 24 (3):331-349.score: 108.0
    This article examines United States v. Stevens, a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, and its relation to animal law and freedom of speech issues, specifically the contention between the two, caused by the statute in question at the heart of the case. While animal rights advocates wish to frame the case through an anti-animal cruelty perspective, those seeking to protect freedom of speech have made the statute an issue of First Amendment rights. Is 18 USC § (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Mark Slagle (2009). An Ethical Exploration of Free Expression and the Problem of Hate Speech. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 24 (4):238-250.score: 102.0
    The traditional Western notion of freedom of expression has been criticized in recent years by critical race theorists who argue that this ethos ignores the gross power imbalance between the users of hate speech and their victims. These claims have in turn produced a counterattack by those who hew to the classical libertarian model of free speech. This article examines the arguments put forth by both proponents of the libertarian model of free expression and critical race (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Frederick F. Schauer (1982). Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge University Press.score: 102.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Joan Kennedy Taylor (1997). Protecting Minors From Free Speech. Journal of Information Ethics 6 (2):67-74.score: 102.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Douglas N. Husak (1985). What is so Special About [Free] Speech? Law and Philosophy 4 (1):1 - 15.score: 96.0
    Legal and political philosophers (e.g., Scanlon, Schauser, etc.) typically regard speech as special in the sense that conduct that causes harm should be less subject to regulation if it involves speech than if it does not. Though speech is special in legal analysis, I argue that it should not be given comparable status in moral theory. I maintain that most limitations on state authority enacted on behalf of a moral principle of freedom of speech can be (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Ishani Maitra & Mary Kate McGowan (eds.) (2012). Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford University Press.score: 96.0
    This volume draws on a range of approaches in order to explore the problem and determine what ought to be done about allegedly harmful speech.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Alvin I. Goldman & James C. Cox (1996). Speech, Truth, and the Free Market for Ideas. Legal Theory 2 (1):1-32.score: 96.0
    This article examines a thesis of interest to social epistemology and some articulations of First Amendment legal theory: that a free market in speech is an optimal institution for promoting true belief. Under our interpretation, the market-for-speech thesis claims that more total truth possession will be achieved if speech is regulated only by free market mechanisms; that is, both government regulation and private sector nonmarket regulation are held to have information-fostering properties that are inferior to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Lars Lindblom (2007). Dissolving the Moral Dilemma of Whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics 76 (4):413 - 426.score: 90.0
    The ethical debate on whistleblowing concerns centrally the conflict between the right to political free speech and the duty of loyalty to the organization where one works. This is the moral dilemma of whistleblowing. Political free speech is justified because it is a central part of liberal democracy, whereas loyalty can be motivated as a way of showing consideration for one’s associates. The political philosophy of John Rawls is applied to this dilemma, and it is shown (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Corey Brettschneider (2010). When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? The Dilemmas of Freedom of Expression and Democratic Persuasion. Perspectives on Politics 8 (4):1005-1019.score: 90.0
    Hate groups are often thought to reveal a paradox in liberal thinking. On the one hand, such groups challenge the very foundations of liberal thought, including core values of equality and freedom. On the other hand, these same values underlie the rights such as freedom of expression and association that protect hate groups. Thus a liberal democratic state that extends those protections to such groups in the name of value neutrality and freedom of expression may be thought to be undermining (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Susan J. Brison (1998). The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech. Ethics 108 (2):312-339.score: 90.0
  38. Jennifer Hornsby, Free Speech and Hate Speech: Language and Rights.score: 90.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Mary Lyn Stoll (2006). Infotainment and the Moral Obligations of the Multimedia Conglomerate. Journal of Business Ethics 66 (2/3):253 - 260.score: 90.0
    When the Federal Communications Commission considered revamping its policies, many political activists argued that media conglomerates had failed to meet their duties to protect freedom of speech. Moveon's dispute with CBS over its proposed Superbowl advertisement and Michael Moore's quarrel over distribution of his documentary, Fahrenheit 911, are cases in point. In matters of pure entertainment, the public expect companies to avoid offensive programming. The press, on the other hand, may well be forced to offend some audience members in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Susan Dwyer (2011). Review of Abigail Levin, The Cost of Free Speech: Pornography, Hate Speech, and Their Challenge to Liberalism. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2011 (2).score: 90.0
  41. Daniel Jacobson (2004). The Academic Betrayal of Free Speech. Social Philosophy and Policy 21 (2):48-80.score: 90.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Sarah Sorial (2010). Free Speech, Autonomy, and the Marketplace of Ideas. Journal of Value Inquiry 44 (2):167-183.score: 90.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Rae Langton (2000). Pornography and Free Speech. The Philosophers' Magazine 11 (11):41-42.score: 90.0
  44. Peter Singer, Free Speech, Muhammad, and the Holocaust.score: 90.0
    The timing of Austria’s conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the Holocaust could not have been worse. Coming after the deaths of at least 30 people in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, and other Islamic countries during protests against cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, the Irving verdict makes a mockery of the claim that in democratic countries, freedom of expression is a basic right.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Susan J. Brison (2004). Review: Free Speech. [REVIEW] Mind 113 (450):351-357.score: 90.0
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Susan Dwyer (2001). Free Speech. SATS 2 (2):80-97.score: 90.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Lasse Thomassen (2011). Talal Asad, Wendy Brown, Judith Butler and Saba Mahmood, Is Critique Secular? Blasphemy, Injury, and Free Speech (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009), 154 Pp. ISBN 978-0-9823294-1-2 (Pbk), $16.95. [REVIEW] Critical Horizons 12 (1):103-107.score: 90.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Philip Cook & Conrad Heilmann (2013). Two Types of Self-Censorship: Public and Private. Political Studies 61 (1):178-196.score: 90.0
    We develop and defend a distinction between two types of self-censorship: public and private. First, we suggest that public self-censorship refers to a range of individual reactions to a public censorship regime. Second, private self-censorship is the suppression by an agent of his or her own attitudes where a public censor is either absent or irrelevant. The distinction is derived from a descriptive approach to self-censorship that asks: who is the censor, who is the censee, and how do they interact? (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Judith Wagner DeCew (2004). Free Speech and Offensive Expression. Social Philosophy and Policy 21 (2):81-103.score: 90.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000