Προσθήκη στα αγαπημένα
The debate over free speech is often marked by two extremes: in one corner, those who think that the right to free speech is nearly absolute; in the other, those who defend sweeping prohibitions on harmful speech. In Setting Fire to Reason, Jeffrey Howard rejects both extremes. He argues that free speech is among our most important moral rights, but—like all rights—it has limits, determined by moral duties we owe to each other. Yet exactly how these moral limits should be translated into law is complex, depending on the particular speech regulation at issue and the risks of government abuse.
Using incitement as his central example of harmful speech, Howard sets out an integrated framework of speakers’ rights and duties, determining when and why speech restrictions can be justified. In developing this original theory, Howard pinpoints the ethical duties of social media platforms, assesses the role of counter-speech as a weapon against harmful communications, and explores how the law and morality of free speech can and should diverge.
Περιγραφή
The debate over free speech is often marked by two extremes: in one corner, those who think that the right to free speech is nearly absolute; in the other, those who defend sweeping prohibitions on harmful speech. In Setting Fire to Reason, Jeffrey Howard rejects both extremes. He argues that free speech is among our most important moral rights, but—like all rights—it has limits, determined by moral duties we owe to each other. Yet exactly how these moral limits should be translated into law is complex, depending on the particular speech regulation at issue and the risks of government abuse.
Using incitement as his central example of harmful speech, Howard sets out an integrated framework of speakers’ rights and duties, determining when and why speech restrictions can be justified. In developing this original theory, Howard pinpoints the ethical duties of social media platforms, assesses the role of counter-speech as a weapon against harmful communications, and explores how the law and morality of free speech can and should diverge.
