Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech - except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense - by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example - is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group's dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
具体描述
读后感
评分
评分
评分
评分
用户评价
邪教价值观
评分感觉Waldron回应别人质疑的习惯是：你说我这个解决方法不好？你那个解决办法也不怎么样嘛，所以你还是听我的好了
评分感觉Waldron回应别人质疑的习惯是：你说我这个解决方法不好？你那个解决办法也不怎么样嘛，所以你还是听我的好了
评分从well-ordered society出发，认为hate speech攻击的是尊严，主要对Baker与Dworkin的反驳，最后结合启蒙思想史将不宽容与HS联系起来。
评分从well-ordered society出发，认为hate speech攻击的是尊严，主要对Baker与Dworkin的反驳，最后结合启蒙思想史将不宽容与HS联系起来。
相关图书
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.wenda123.org All Rights Reserved. 图书目录大全 版权所有