Suchergebnisse

How high is the price of freedom of speech, and who exactly is paying for it? Hate speech is abusive, insulting, intimidating and harassing, it may lead to violence, hatred or discrimination, and it kills. Asks whether there are circumstances in which speech should be censored, or even criminalized, to protect the vulnerable, and looks at the role of the media in provoking the flight of Gypsies from Slovakia and the Czech Republic, hate radio in Rwanda, the Patriot militia movement's new language of hate in the USA, media hate speech in the former Yugoslavia, and the banning of revisionist Nazi history in Germany. Five articles.

1. An introduction to the argument -- 2. The liberty of thought and discussion -- 3. A case study -- 4. Truth and consequences -- 5. Consequentialism and the right to free speech -- 6. The value of truth -- 7. Areopagitica's aftermath -- 8. Contract and convention -- 9. From the contract to free speech? -- 10. Concerning toleration -- 11. Conclusions and prospects.

The American conception of free speech is primarily defined as the freedom to say whatever one wants, with little regard for the quality, context, or impact of the speech. Thus, American free speech doctrine is often characterized as neutral with regard to the speaker and the content of speech; in practice, however, it consistently privileges powerful over vulnerable speakers and harmful over critical speech. From Philadelphia to Skokie to Charlottesville, the First Amendment has been interpreted to protect speech by white men that silences and endangers women and minorities. As free speech doctrine and practice become increasingly concerned with private as well as state action, free speech becomes even more of a monopoly and monoculture dominated by the interests of white men. The impoverished and elitist conception of free speech that governs current American legal theory and practice undermines all three values the First Amendment is meant to protect: autonomy, truth, and democracy. This Article proposes that First Amendment theory and practice should be reoriented around ancient Greek concept of parrhesia, or fearless speech. As the philosopher Michel Foucault describes it, the speaker of parrhesia "chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy." Parrhesia is, in essence, the act of speaking truth to power. The more fearless the speech, the more protection and encouragement it should receive, both from state and private actors; the more reckless the speech, the less protection and encouragement it should receive. The ideal of fearless speech, rather than free speech, is a superior guide for a society with democratic aspirations.

Binder's title. ; Address . delivered before the Kalamazoo County agricultural society . 1850.--. On rivers and harbors. 1852.--The North American fisheries. 1852.--. On the Collins line of streamers. 1852.--. On our relations with Great Britain. 1865.--Admission of California. 1850.--Kansas - the territories. 1856.--. On the motion of Mr. Benton for the indefinite postponement of the Compromise bill. 1850.--Territorial governments. 1850.--. On the President's veto messages on the River and harbor appropriation bills. 1856.--. In answer to objections made by Mr. Benjamin and some other senators, to the passage of the Homestead bill. 1854.--. On the construction of a canal round the falls of the Sault Ste. Marie, in the state of Michigan. 1852.--. In reply to Governor Jones, of Tennessee; also Letter from Jefferson Davis, and Explanation of Gen. Cass. [185-?]--. On the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. 1854.--Remarks . on the presentation of resolutions of instruction from the Legislature of [Michigan] 1855. ; Mode of access: Internet.

A collection of articles debating issues related to free speech such as censorship, restrictions on the press, pornography, and libel

What makes a speech community? How do they evolve? How are speech communities identified? Speech communities are central to our understanding of how language and interactions occur in societies around the world and in this book readers will find an overview of the main concepts and critical arguments surrounding how language and communication styles distinguish and identify groups. Speech communities are not organized around linguistic facts but around people who want to share their opinions and identities; the language we use constructs, represents and embodies meaningful participation in society. This book focuses on a range of speech communities, including those that have developed from an increasing technological world where migration and global interactions are common. Essential reading for graduate students and researchers in linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics and applied linguistics

From p. [2] -- "Reprinted from the Scotsman of 23d June 1884." ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Talbot collection of British pamphlets.

Nowadays, when we talk about democracy and civil society, it is simply impossible to imagine it without freedom of speech and expression. The right of the human to express any thought in any manner is of great importance to the democratic society. Speech is used to express thoughts and opinions. When people face limitations in speech, they face limitations in thoughts. Certain ideas cannot reach their minds because they do not know about their existence. Freedom of speech is often considered as liberty and primary principle of a fullfledged society. It's an individual right, which is to be available to everyone. Freedom of speech takes special place in democratic countries. Freedom is an integral part of democratic society and in this case it is considered as a positive right, but it does not exist in its absolute form all the time. There are certain restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, especially when it crosses the border into hate speech. The theme of this paper is just for distinguishing the moment of crossing the border in free expression. Also, since we are living in a democratic society, we should behave that way. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize and avoid hate speech, to behave responsibly, with dignity and with respect for anyone who is different from us, in any sense.