Free Speech or Non-discrimination as Trump? Reflections on Contextualised Reasonable Balancing and Its Limits.
This article reflects on the long-standing debate on free speech and its limitations. Starting with conceptual, theoretical, empirical and normative clarifications of contested issues such as what kind of communication is at stake and how to define the limits of freedoms of political communication,...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies Vol. 40; no. 2; pp. 320 - 339 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Feb2014
|
| 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=92578313&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 92578313 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 1369183X 56F jtl: Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies issn: 1369183X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2014 vid: 40 iid: 2 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 92578313 10.1080/1369183X.2013.851478 ppf: 320 ppct: 19 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 133KB tig: atl: Free Speech or Non-discrimination as Trump? Reflections on Contextualised Reasonable Balancing and Its Limits. aug: au: Bader, Veit su: Freedom of speech Political communication Criminal procedure Hate speech laws European Court of Human Rights sug: subj: Freedom of speech Political communication Criminal procedure Hate speech laws European Court of Human Rights keyword: Criminalisation and Non-legal Alternatives Freedom of Political Communication Incitement to Discrimination Incitement to Violence ab: This article reflects on the long-standing debate on free speech and its limitations. Starting with conceptual, theoretical, empirical and normative clarifications of contested issues such as what kind of communication is at stake and how to define the limits of freedoms of political communication, its main thrust is to demonstrate that the traditional confrontation of ‘US Free-Speech Absolutism’ versus ‘the Rest’ is empirically and normatively misleading, that there are independent reasons for the principles of free speech and non-discrimination which often conflict with each other, that there is no context-independent hierarchy, and that contexts matter for their interpretations, applications and balancing. Building on recent trends in moral and political philosophy and in comparative constitutionalism the article defends principles of liberal-democratic constitutionalism that, in comparison with national constitutionalism, have to be more abstract, culturally thinner and more minimalist. The most important guidelines are: a presumption in favour of both free speech and non-discrimination, even if they are in conflict; the application of ‘strict-scrutiny’ tests to restrictions for reasons of incitement to violence and discrimination, and the exceptional resort to criminal proceedings. There is also a need to develop alternative non-legal responses, policies and institutional arrangements to tackle the root causes of racist, ethno-centrist and religious violence and discrimination. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2014 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|