6 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Maxime Lepoutre [5]Maxime Charles Lepoutre [1]
See also
Maxime C. Lepoutre
Oxford University
  1.  70
    Rage Inside the Machine: Defending the Place of Anger in Democratic Speech.Maxime Lepoutre - 2018 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 17 (4):398-426.
    According to an influential objection, which Martha Nussbaum has powerfully restated, expressing anger in democratic public discourse is counterproductive from the standpoint of justice. To resist this challenge, this article articulates a crucial yet underappreciated sense in which angry discourse is epistemically productive. Drawing on recent developments in the philosophy of emotion, which emphasize the distinctive phenomenology of emotion, I argue that conveying anger to one’s listeners is epistemically valuable in two respects: first, it can direct listeners’ attention to elusive (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  2. Hate Speech in Public Discourse: A Pessimistic Defense of Counterspeech.Maxime Lepoutre - 2017 - Social Theory and Practice 43 (4):851-883.
    Jeremy Waldron, among others, has forcefully argued that public hate speech assaults the dignity of its targets. Without denying this claim, I contend that it fails to establish that bans, rather than counterspeech, are the appropriate response. By articulating a more refined understanding of counterspeech, I suggest that counterspeech constitutes a better way of blocking hate speech’s dignitarian harm. In turn, I address two objections: according to the first, which draws on contemporary philosophy of language, counterspeech does not block enough (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  3.  63
    Democratic Group Cognition.Maxime Lepoutre - 2020 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 48 (1):40-78.
    Philosophy &Public Affairs, Volume 48, Issue 1, Page 40-78, Winter 2020.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  40
    Can 'More Speech' Counter Ignorant Speech?Maxime Charles Lepoutre - 2019 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 16 (3).
    Ignorant speech, which spreads falsehoods about people and policies, is pervasive in public discourse. A popular response to this problem recommends countering ignorant speech with more speech, rather than legal regulations. However, Mary Kate McGowan has influentially argued that this ‘counterspeech’ response is flawed, as it overlooks the asymmetric pliability of conversational norms: the phenomenon whereby some conversational norms are easier to enact than subsequently to reverse. After demonstrating that this conversational ‘stickiness’ is an even broader concern for counterspeech than (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5.  24
    Immigration Controls: Why the Self‐Determination Argument Is Self‐Defeating.Maxime Lepoutre - 2016 - Journal of Social Philosophy 47 (3):309-331.
    In philosophical debates about immigration, one of the most prominent arguments asserts that a state’s citizenry has a right to unilaterally control its territorial borders by virtue of its right to self-determination. This is the self-determination argument. The present article demonstrates that this argument is internally undermined by the Coercion Principle, according to which all persons subjected to coercive political power are entitled to an equal say in exercising that power. First, whichever way the self-determination argument identifies the relevant self-determining (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  6.  21
    Hate Speech Laws: Expressive Power is Not the Answer.Maxime Lepoutre - 2019 - Legal Theory 25 (4):272-296.
    ABSTRACTAccording to the influential “expressive” argument for hate speech laws, legal restrictions on hate speech are justified, in significant part, because they powerfully express opposition to hate speech. Yet the expressive argument faces a challenge: why couldn't we communicate opposition to hate speech via counterspeech, rather than bans? I argue that the expressive argument cannot address this challenge satisfactorily. Specifically, I examine three considerations that purport to explain bans’ expressive distinctiveness: considerations of strength; considerations of directness; and considerations of complicity. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark