Authors
Uwe Steinhoff
University of Hong Kong
Abstract
Recent arguments trying to justify further free speech restrictions by appealing to harms that are allegedly serious enough to warrant such restrictions regularly fail to provide sufficient empirical evidence and normative argument. This is also true for the attempt made by Bonotti and Seglow. They offer no valid argument for their claim that it is wrong to direct “religiously offensive speech” at “unjustly disadvantaged” minorities (thereby allegedly undermining their “self-respect”), nor for their further claim that this is not the case when such speech is directed at “established majorities.” Moreover, their account has either counter-intuitive moral implications or succumbs to logical or pragmatic incoherence. Thus, they have not adduced convincing reasons to further restrict speech. In fact, some of the reasons for this failure provide, in turn, positive reasons in support of free speech. Two important (not new, but newly confirmed) reasons are that restricting free speech undermines both equal civic standing as well as fact-guided (as opposed to blindly ideological) policies. Free speech, in contrast, is indispensable for both.
Keywords Matteo Bonotti   free speech   harm   Islam   offense   preferred pronouns   respect   rights   Jonathan Seglow
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Two Kinds of Respect.Stephen Darwall - 1977 - Ethics 88 (1):36-49.
Why It's OK to Speak Your Mind.Hrishikesh Joshi - 2021 - New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
A Right to Do Wrong.Jeremy Waldron - 1981 - Ethics 92 (1):21-39.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Hate Speech, Dignity and Self-Respect.Jonathan Seglow - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (5):1103-1116.
Freedom of Speech: A Relational Defence.Matteo Bonotti & Jonathan Seglow - 2022 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 48 (4):515-529.
Self-Respect, Domination and Religiously Offensive Speech.Matteo Bonotti & Jonathan Seglow - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (3):589-605.
Freedom of Speech: A Relational Defence.Matteo Bonotti & Jonathan Seglow - 2022 - Sage Publications Ltd: Philosophy and Social Criticism 48 (4):515-529.
Introduction: Hate, Offence and Free Speech in a Changing World.Paul Billingham & Matteo Bonotti - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (3):531-537.
Food Labeling and Free Speech.Matteo Bonotti - 2017 - In Mary C. Rawlinson & Caleb Ward (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Food Ethics. Routledge. pp. 127--137.
Corporate Rights to Free Speech?Mary Lyn Stoll - 2005 - Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):261-269.
Regulating Offense, Nurturing Offense.Robert Mark Simpson - 2018 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 17 (3):235-256.
Freedom of Expression.Matteo Bonotti & Jonathan Seglow - 2021 - Philosophy Compass 16 (7):e12759.
What is Free Speech?David Braddon-Mitchell & Caroline West - 2004 - Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (4):437-460.
Free Speech and Liberal Community.Gerald Lang - 2019 - In Carl Fox & Joe Saunders (eds.), Media Ethics, Free Speech, and the Requirements of Democracy. London, UK: pp. 105-123.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2022-05-12

Total views
81 ( #144,828 of 2,519,632 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
81 ( #9,294 of 2,519,632 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes