Article Text
Public policy
The fragility of freedom of speech
Abstract
Freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty that imposes a stringent duty of tolerance. Tolerance is limited by direct incitements to violence. False notions and bad laws on speech have obscured our view of this freedom. Hence, perhaps, the self-righteous intolerance, incitements and threats in response to Giubilini and Minerva. Those who disagree have the right to argue back but their attempts to shut us up are morally wrong.
- Allowing Minors to Die
- Legal Aspects
- Legal Philosophy
- Philosophical Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Should violent offenders be forced to undergo neurotechnological treatment? A critical discussion of the ‘freedom of thought’ objection
- Selling conscience short: a response to Schuklenk and Smalling on conscientious objections by medical professionals
- Life in the cloud and freedom of speech
- Human rights and bioethics
- What should be done about smoking in movies?
- On emergencies and emigration: how (not) to justify compulsory medical service
- Free speech and professional duty: why I couldn’t fight tabloid rumours
- Should spreading anti-vaccine misinformation be criminalised?
- Translational ethics? The theory–practice gap in medical ethics
- Parroting patriots: interspecies trauma and becoming-well-together