![Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Freedom of speech
Semelhante a Freedom of speech (20)
Freedom of speech
- 1. Freedom of Speech "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.“ Voltaire
- 10. Stanley Fish We have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on speech than on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm. Speech can be limited to prevent harm being done to the speaker.
Notas do Editor
- . If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups. It also undermines democratic citizenship and stirs up nationalism and jingoism, which results in harm to citizens of other countries. Even worse than political discourse, according to Kateb, is religious speech; he claims that a lot of religious speech is hateful, useless, dishonest, and ferments war, bigotry and fundamentalism. It also creates bad self-image and feelings of guilt that can haunt persons throughout their lives. Pornography and hate speech, he claims, cause nowhere near as much harm as political and religious speech. His conclusion is that we do not want to ban these forms of speech and the harm principle, therefore, casts its net too far. Kateb's solution is to abandon the principle in favor of almost unlimited speech.