Law as Counterspeech

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21702013
AutoresAnjalee De Silva (The University of Melbourne), Rosemary Michelle Simpson (0000-0001-8267-6618, University College London, autor de correspondencia)
Año2023
Volumen26
Número4
Páginas493-510
Fecha de publicación2023-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaEthical Theory and Moral Practice (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1386-2820 • E-ISSN: 1572-8447
EditorialSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s10677-022-10335-3
OpenAlexW4308748700
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas18

A growing body of work in free speech theory is interested in the nature of counterspeech, i.e. speech that aims to counteract the effects of harmful speech. Counterspeech is usually defined in opposition to legal responses to harmful speech, which try to prevent such speech from occurring in the first place. In this paper we challenge this way of carving up the conceptual terrain. Instead, we argue that our main classificatory division, in theorising responses to harmful speech, should be between pro-discursive and anti-discursive responses. Some legal responses to harmful speech, so we argue, make a positive discursive contribution in their own right. That is, legal restrictions on harmful speech can have a function that is importantly similar to speech that aims at countering the effects of harmful speech

Epistemology · Free speech · Indirect speech · Linguistics · Motor theory of speech perception · Perception · Philosophy of medicine · Political philosophy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Speech act · Speech perception · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Philosophy · Psychology