A Republican Conception of Counterspeech.
'Counterspeech' is often presented as a way in which individual citizens can respond to harmful speech while avoiding the potentially coercive and freedom-damaging effects of formal speech restrictions. But counterspeech itself can also undermine freedom by contributing to forms of social punishment...
| Publicado en: | Ethical Theory & Moral Practice Vol. 26; no. 4; pp. 555 - 576 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Sep2023
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=172867427&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 172867427 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13862820 OEY jtl: Ethical Theory & Moral Practice issn: 13862820 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2023 vid: 26 iid: 4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 172867427 10.1007/s10677-023-10409-w ppf: 555 ppct: 21 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 928KB tig: atl: A Republican Conception of Counterspeech. aug: au: Whitten, Suzanne affil: https://ror.org/00hswnk62 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK su: Hate speech Freedom of speech Republicanism Public shaming Punishment sug: subj: Hate speech Freedom of speech Republicanism Public shaming Punishment keyword: Counterspeech Non-domination Shaming ab: 'Counterspeech' is often presented as a way in which individual citizens can respond to harmful speech while avoiding the potentially coercive and freedom-damaging effects of formal speech restrictions. But counterspeech itself can also undermine freedom by contributing to forms of social punishment that manipulate a speaker's choice set in uncontrolled ways. Specifically, and by adopting a republican perspective, this paper argues that certain kinds of counterspeech can dominate when they contribute to unchecked social norms that enable others to interfere arbitrarily with speakers. The presence of such domination can pose just as much a threat to freedom of speech as unchecked formal restrictions by threatening an individual's discursive status, revealing a problem for those who defend counterspeech as a freedom-protecting alternative. Rather than rejecting both counterspeech and legislation outright, however, this paper argues that the republican principle of parsimony ought to be exercised when deciding on appropriate harmful speech response. While the principle of parsimony allows for suitably-checked formal punishment for some of the most egregious forms of harmful speech, citizen-led counterspeech must be guided by a reliable set of norms against the use of social punishment where those who do engage in social punishment face certain costs. The presence of robust, widely-known, and reliable norms thus supports both formal and informal responses to harmful speech while maintaining a secure discursive status for all. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Ethical Theory & Moral Practice is a copyright of Springer, 2023. All Rights Reserved. item: Ethical Theory & Moral Practice holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2023 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|