scholarly journals Hostility, Harassment, and Violence: On the Limits of ‘Free Speech’ for Minority Feminist Scholars

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-20
Author(s):  
Robyn Bourgeois
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Black Feminists ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
The Rich

Following the rich tradition of Indigenous and Black feminists and authors, this article makes use of storytelling to explore the limits of freedom of speech in the academy for feminist scholars belonging to socially marginalized groups and, particularly, Indigenous feminist scholars. Through autoethnography, I expose the ways that freedom of speech was been weaponized against me by people with power to silence and suppress my freedom of speech. Moreover, I draw attention to the ways this has been done to me in order to secure the freedom of speech of other dominant and powerful people. This paper concludes with some recommendations about disrupting this violence and better supporting feminist scholars from minority groups.

scholarly journals Ratbags, revolutionaries and free speech: The Queensland radical press in 1968

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-170
Author(s):  
Alan Knight
Keyword(s):  
Mobile Phones ◽  
State Government ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Internet Community ◽  
Mainstream Press ◽  
The University

Australian governments have made continuing attempts to restrict the public’s right to know. This article looks back to 1968 when radical Queensland university students challenged state government restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly and information. They did so by using then new offset press technology to create alternatives to a mainstream press monopoly. In a world without internet, community radio and television, or even mobile phones, leaflets and small newspapers were the primary media for such minority groups wishing to spread their critiques to the wider community. The article examines the radical newsletter’s themes including freedom of speech, civil liberties, Australian racism, press ownership and the anti-war movement. It includes references to Queensland produced cartoons and posters. It was produced with material from the Fryer Library at the University of Queensland.

The Logic of ‘But’: Quarrels, Literature and Democracy

Paragraph ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-130
Author(s):  
Thomas Docherty
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Way

This paper looks at intrinsic disputation within proposition, and specifically within propositions that offer a moderated version of the freedom of speech and expression. It begins from a consideration of what is at stake in Othello's ‘Rude am I in my speech’, a rhetorical gesture that frames an act of great eloquence, and in which the eloquence serves to formulate a quarrel by ostensibly resolving it. This example reveals that there is a conflict between empirical quarrel and articulated spoken resolution. This leads the essay to explore the way in which diplomacy works, whereby we establish the pretence that there is peace between disputatious positions through the power of the logic of ‘but’, thus: ‘I agree with you, but …’. Finally, this is extended to a consideration of the limits of and/or on free speech: ‘I defend free speech, but …’, where the ‘but’ is a gesture in which the defence of free speech is modified to the point of being obliterated.

PERSECUTION AND THE ART OF FREEDOM: ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FREE PRESS AND FREE SPEECH IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-208
Author(s):  
Khalil M. Habib
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Alexis De Tocqueville ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Constituent Element ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractAccording to Tocqueville, the freedom of the press, which he treats as an extension of the freedom of speech, is a primary constituent element of liberty. Tocqueville treats the freedom of the press in relation to and as an extension of the right to assemble and govern one’s own affairs, both of which he argues are essential to preserving liberty in a free society. Although scholars acknowledge the importance of civil associations to liberty in Tocqueville’s political thought, they routinely ignore the importance he places on the freedom of the press and speech. His reflections on the importance of the free press and speech may help to shed light on the dangers of recent attempts to censor the press and speech.

Positive Free Speech: A Democratic Freedom

2021 ◽  
pp. 230-248
Author(s):  
Andrew T. Kenyon
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Public Speech ◽  
Positive Freedom ◽  
Negative Liberty ◽  
Structural Dimensions ◽  
Democratic Freedom ◽  
Legal Right

This chapter explores the positive structural dimensions of the freedom of speech by using a democratic free speech rationale. While far from the only aspect of positive free speech, it offers a useful example of the freedom’s positive dimensions. The chapter focuses on legal conditions underlying public speech and their links to democratic constitutional arrangements. It outlines the general approach before drawing brief comparisons with two well-known US approaches to free speech and media freedom. The chapter then highlights two of the multiple ways in which ‘positive’ can be used in relation to free speech. Positive may concern positive freedom, the idea that freedom is not only a negative liberty but requires support or enablement. It can also be used in terms of a positive right, typically a legal right enforced through courts.

scholarly journals Scholarship Suppression: Theoretical Perspectives and Emerging Trends

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Stevens ◽  
Lee Jussim ◽  
Nathan Honeycutt
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Real World ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Sociological Analysis ◽  
The Past ◽  
Academic Scholarship ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Emerging Trends ◽  
Free Speech Rights

This paper explores the suppression of ideas within academic scholarship by academics, either by self-suppression or because of the efforts of other academics. Legal, moral, and social issues distinguishing freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and academic freedom are reviewed. How these freedoms and protections can come into tension is then explored by a sociological analysis of denunciation mobs who exercise their legal free speech rights to call for punishing scholars who express ideas they disapprove of and condemn. When successful, these efforts, which constitute legally protected speech, will suppress certain ideas. Real-world examples over the past five years of academics who have been sanctioned or terminated for scholarship targeted by a denunciation mob are then explored.

Where to limit the freedom of speech? Analysis in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the fighting words doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256
Author(s):  
Karolina Palka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Socialist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Socialist Party Of America ◽  
The Right

This article is about the limits of the right to free speech. The first section provides a brief introduction to this topic, primarily in the context of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second section describes the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which was fundamental to the topic of this paper because the United States Supreme Court created the so-called "fighting words" doctrine based on it. In the next two sections, two court cases are presented that perfectly demonstrate the limits of the right to free speech in the United States: Snyder v. Phelps and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. The fifth part shows the right to freedom of speech in the context of Polish civil, criminal, and constitutional law, as well as acts of international law binding on Poland. The last part is a short summary.

Text and Republican Government

2021 ◽  
pp. 57-82
Author(s):  
George Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Republican Government ◽  
New Republic ◽  
Constitutional Meaning ◽  
Constitutional Republic

Early conflicts over religious liberty and freedom of speech reveal that while we can agree on the Constitution’s text, we can profoundly disagree over the unwritten ideas we think the text represents. Debates about religion and free speech point to deeper unwritten principles that are at the very heart of America’s constitutional republic. The first debate deals with the prohibition on religious tests for office in Article VI. The second speaks to freedom of speech and press. In these early debates about religious liberty and freedom of speech, the antagonists agreed on the wording of constitutional text; they disagreed profoundly on the principles and political theory that underlie it in their understanding of America’s new republic. These early arguments reveal the importance of constructing constitutional meaning from the unwritten ideas that underlie the constitutional text.

Freedom of Speech

2020 ◽  
pp. 191-213
Author(s):  
Alison Scott-Baumann ◽  
Mathew Guest ◽  
Shuruq Naguib ◽  
Sariya Cheruvallil-Contractor ◽  
Aisha Phoenix
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Face To Face

Media and government accuse students of being libertarian (encouraging reckless free speech) or of too much no-platforming (banning external speakers). Both accusations are exaggerated but influential and make it difficult for students to develop face to face conversations about difficult and controversial topics. Government policies on securitization (Prevent) encourage risk averse behaviour, particularly but not exclusively among Muslims. Staff also feel constrained by these pressures and so staff and students self-censor. Analysis of free speech models available in a liberal democracy show two main types, each of which can become an extreme version of itself. The liberal model advocates legal free expression; however if exaggerated the liberal model becomes libertarian and can be offensive. The second approach is the guarded liberal model that seeks to protect minorities but if exaggerated it can turn into no platforming. Students and staff can learn to use combinations of all four approaches and increase face to face discussions.

A Call from the Task Force

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Rodney A. Smolla
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Racial Violence ◽  
White Supremacist ◽  
Virginia Beach ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
The City

This chapter introduces the task force created by Governor Terry McAuliffe in Richmond, Virginia that are tasked to study the racial violence in the city of Charlottesville during the summer of 2017. It mentions the violence in Richmond that claimed the life of Heather Heyer when a white supremacist, James Alex Fields Jr., slammed his speeding car into a crowd of counter-protesters confronting a “Unite the Right” rally. This chapter explains the work of the task force, which requires them to deeply investigate the constitutional protections of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the rules of engagement governing what society could or could not do when confronted with racial supremacist groups rallying in a city. It also describes the famous free speech case called Virginia vs. Black involving vicious racist hate speech. The case involved a cross-burning rally of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in rural western Virginia in 1998 and a second cross-burning incident in Virginia Beach in the yard of an African American, James Jubilee.

Canadians Discuss Freedom of Speech: Individual Rights Versus Group Protection

2000 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Civic Leaders ◽  
Versus Group ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Core Value ◽  
Free Speech Rights

AbstractFreedom of speech as an individual right is often thought to interfere with the collective rights of vulnerable groups to protection against threats of violence and demeaning group insults. This study analyzes interviews with 78 Canadian civic leaders that probed their views on this possible rights conflict. For most respondents, freedom of speech is not a core value, but one that must be reconciled with equality, nondiscrimination, and multiculturalism. Most of these Canadians will tolerate some restrictions on freedom of speech, believing such restrictions will promote community harmony and respect for all groups in society. These Canadians hold to a communitarian view of rights, and trust their government to curb free speech rights to protect vulnerable groups. However, ’new’ free speech issues, involving conflicts among members of different vulnerable groups, may point to the need to reinforce individual freedom of speech.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document