Since their publication, the Muhammad cartoons featured in Jyllands Posten and Charlie Hebdo have become a symbol of free speech and Western values. These cartoons used provocation as a tool to discuss the limits of free speech and the scope of social self-censorship. In a just society, should the possibility of laughter be distributed equally? Should cartoonists and editors only publish jokes that are universally laughable? What is the proper reaction to these kinds of provocative jokes once the possibility of (...) censorship is ruled out in a liberal context? Is counterspeech or even cancellation a legitimate response? (shrink)

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 48, Issue 4, Page 530-543, May 2022. Since their publication, the Muhammad cartoons featured in Jyllands Posten and Charlie Hebdo have become a symbol of free speech and Western values. These cartoons used provocation as a tool to discuss the limits of free speech and the scope of social self-censorship. In a just society, should the possibility of laughter be distributed equally? Should cartoonists and editors only publish jokes that are universally laughable? What is the (...) proper reaction to these kinds of provocative jokes once the possibility of censorship is ruled out in a liberal context? Is counterspeech or even cancellation a legitimate response? (shrink)

Since their publication, the Muhammad cartoons featured in Jyllands Posten and Charlie Hebdo have become a symbol of free speech and Western values. These cartoons used provocation as a tool to discuss the limits of free speech and the scope of social self-censorship. In a just society, should the possibility of laughter be distributed equally? Should cartoonists and editors only publish jokes that are universally laughable? What is the proper reaction to these kinds of provocative jokes once the possibility of (...) censorship is ruled out in a liberal context? Is counterspeech or even cancellation a legitimate response? (shrink)

In “Two Concepts of Liberty”, I. Berlin asserts, referring to Mill, that there is no necessary link between freedom as non-interference and freedom as self-government. If, by contrast, we focus our attention on freedom of expression, the assertion of Berlin loses its footing. Freedom of expression is, according to Mill, a public good:either because it serves to control the rulers, or because it allows the collective search for truth. Non-interference in the consciousness of individuals is not an end in itself, (...) but a first step in the formation of collective will. (shrink)