Insults, Free Speech and Offensiveness.
This article examines what is wrong with some expressive acts, 'insults'. Their putative wrongfulness is distinguished from the causing of indirect harms, aggregated harms, contextual harms, and damaging misrepresentations. The article clarifies what insults are, making use of work by Neu and Austin...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Applied Philosophy Vol. 31; no. 2; pp. 127 - 142 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
May2014
|
| 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=95876775&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 95876775 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 02643758 BQ0 jtl: Journal of Applied Philosophy issn: 02643758 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: May2014 vid: 31 iid: 2 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 95876775 10.1111/japp.12048 ppf: 127 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 101KB tig: atl: Insults, Free Speech and Offensiveness. aug: au: Archard, David affil: School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen's University Belfast, University Road, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK su: Freedom of speech Hate speech Invective Communication Ethics sug: subj: Freedom of speech Hate speech Invective Communication Ethics ab: This article examines what is wrong with some expressive acts, 'insults'. Their putative wrongfulness is distinguished from the causing of indirect harms, aggregated harms, contextual harms, and damaging misrepresentations. The article clarifies what insults are, making use of work by Neu and Austin, and argues that their wrongfulness cannot lie in the hurt that is caused to those at whom such acts are directed. Rather it must lie in what they seek to do, namely to denigrate the other. The causing of offence is at most evidence that an insult has been communicated; it is not independent grounds of proscription or constraint. The victim of an insult may know that she has been insulted but not accept or agree with the insult, and thereby submit to the insulter. Hence insults need not, as Waldron argues they do, occasion dignitary harms. They do not of themselves subvert their victims' equal moral status. The claim that hateful speech endorses inequality should not be conflated with a claim that such speech directly subverts equality. Thus, 'wounding words' should not unduly trouble the liberal defender of free speech either on the grounds of preventing offence or on those of avoiding dignitary harms. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Journal of Applied Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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 Applied Philosophy holder: Wiley-Blackwell dt: @attributes: year: 2014 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|