Categorias

Apostolado da Oração

Pesquisa

Página principal>Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia>2022,V. 78,N. 1-2, Edith Stein: no 80º Aniversário da sua Morte>Deve haver Limites para a Liberdade de Expressão?

Deve haver Limites para a Liberdade de Expressão?

Deve haver Limites para a Liberdade de Expressão?

Bernardo Ferro, “Deve haver Limites para a Liberdade de Expressão?,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 78, no. 1–2 (2022): 473–98, https://doi.org/10.17990/RPF/2022_78_1_0473.

Mais detalhes

À venda À venda!
10,00 €

2022_78_1_0473

Disponível apenas on-line

  • Deve haver Limites para a Liberdade de Expressão?

    Type Journal Article
    Author Bernardo Ferro
    Rights © 2022 by Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia
    Volume 78
    Issue 1-2
    Pages 473-498
    Publication Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia
    ISSN 0870-5283 ; 2183-461X
    Date 2022
    Extra Should there be Limits to Freedom of Speech?
    DOI 10.17990/RPF/2022_78_1_0473
    Language Portuguese
    Abstract Can the freedom of expression be rightfully restricted? If so, how should one distinguish between what may and may not be expressed to others? To answer these questions, I focus on the liberal approach to free speech, introduced by Kant and Stuart Mill, and discuss its main limitations. Based on this analysis, I propose a new normative framework grounded in a critical reassessment of the concept of harm. I argue that this concept must be clarified and expanded so as to cover a wider range of conflicts and that its application must take into account the diversity and the inequality that characterize the public sphere. These conclusions then lead to the identification of the forms of expression that may be legitimately curbed, along with their scope and context. The proposed solution countenances the restriction of expressive acts that contravene the right to one’s privacy, good name and physical or psychological welfare, but rejects the arbitrariness associated with the notions of offence, insult and obscenity. To be legitimate, restrictions must be directed primarily at the discourses or attitudes that might compromise the participation of their targets in the public sphere, and hence the very exercise of their freedom of expression.
    Date Added 7/30/2022, 10:18:55 PM
    Modified 7/30/2022, 11:10:56 PM

    Tags:

    • democracy, freedom of expression, harm, Kant, offence, public sphere, Stuart Mill.

    Notes:

    • Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

      Brison, Susan. “The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech.” Ethics 108, 2 (1998): 312-339.

      Feinberg, Joel. The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Volume 2: Offense to Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

      Francisquini, Renato. “On The Limits of Free Speech: Towards the Fair Value of Communicative Liberties.” Brazilian Political Science Review 9, 1 (2015): 65-92.

      Goldberg, Erica. “Free Speech Consequentialism.” Columbia Law Review 116, 3 (2016): 687-756.

      Gray, John. Mill on Liberty: A Defence. New York: Routledge, 1996.

      Greenawalt, Kent. “Free Speech Justifications.” Columbia Law Review 89, 1 (1989): 119-155.

      Habermas, Jürgen. Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaat. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1992.

      Kant, Immanuel. Kant’s Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Reimer/de Gruyter, 1900-.

      Laursen, John. “The Subversive Kant: The Vocabulary of ‘Public’ and ‘Publicity’.” Political Theory 14, 4 (1986): 584-603.

      Levmore, Saul and Martha Nussbaum. The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy, and Reputation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.

      Meiklejohn, Alexander. Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948.

      Mill, John Stuart. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. John Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963-91.

      Mollen, Abby and Martin Redish. “Understanding Post’s and Meiklejohn’s Mistakes: the central role of adversary democracy in the theory of freedom of expression.” Northwestern University Law Review 103, 3 (2009): 1303-1370.

      Post, Robert. Constitutional Domains: Democracy, Community, Management. London: Harvard University Press, 1995.

      Riley, Jonathan. Mill on Liberty. New York: Routledge, 1998.

      Sandel, Michael. Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality and Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.

      Saunders, Ben. “Reformulating Mill’s Harm Principle.” Mind 125, 500 (2016): 1005-1032.

      Turner, Piers Norris. “‘Harm’ and Mill’s Harm Principle.” Ethics 124, 2 (2014): 299-326. 

Carrinho  

Sem produtos

Envio 0,00 €
Total 0,00 €

Carrinho Encomendar

PayPal

Pesquisa