Res Publica 17 (1):75-90 (2011)
An objection frequently brought against critical or satirical expressions, especially when these target religions, is that they are ‘offensive’. In this article, I indicate why the existence of diverse and conflicting beliefs gives people an incentive to formulate their complaints in the language of offence. But I also cast doubt on whether people, in saying they are offended really mean to present that as the foundation of their complaint and, if they do, whether their complaint should weigh with us. These doubts do not apply to everything we might find offensive; in particular, they do not apply to simple cases of ‘sensory offence’; but they do apply to ‘belief-based offence’. Relying on offence also implies, inequitably, that different faiths should be differently protected depending on their susceptibility to offence; and the faithful themselves should worry about the flimsiness of claims based on ‘bare knowledge’ offence. I propose a principle of respect for beliefs as a differently grounded and more plausible reason for curbing our treatment of others’ beliefs. However, that principle has a limited compass and is hemmed in by the claims of free expression. It is also less suited to dictating the content of law than to influencing our conduct within the law
|Keywords||Freedom of speech Freedom of expression Offence Offensiveness Respect Respect for beliefs Danish cartoons Jerry Springer: the Opera|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Autonomy, Respect, and Arrogance in the Danish Cartoon Controversy.C. F. Rostboll - 2009 - Political Theory 37 (5):623-648.
Rethinking the Offense Principle.A. P. Simester & Andrew von Hirsch - 2002 - Legal Theory 8 (3):269-295.
Offense and the Liberal Conception of the Law.Anthony Ellis - 1984 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1):3-23.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Disgust, Offensiveness and the Law.David Archard - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (4):314-321.
Coming Clean About the Criminal Law.James Edwards - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (3):315-332.
Belief-Based Exemptions: Are Religious Beliefs Special?Gemma Cornelissen - 2012 - Ratio Juris 25 (1):85-109.
Helping People to Think Critically About Their Religious Beliefs.Michael Tooley - 2009 - In 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. Wiley-Blackwell.
Freedom of Expression: Justifications & Restrictions.Re'em Segev - 2008 - Israel Democracy Institute.
Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don't: The European Court of Human Rights and the Protection of Religion From Attack.Ian Leigh - 2011 - Res Publica 17 (1):55-73.
Punishing Organized Crime Leaders for the Crimes of Their Subordinates.Shachar Eldar - 2010 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (2):183-196.
Pornography and Freedom.Danny Frederick - 2011 - Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):84-95.
On Blanket Statements About the Epistemic Effects of Religious Diversity.Andrew Koehl - 2005 - Religious Studies 41 (4):395-414.
Added to index2011-02-07
Total downloads52 ( #101,065 of 2,171,986 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,556 of 2,171,986 )
How can I increase my downloads?