“Free Speech” and “Offensive” Speech on Campus

Scott, Peter R.

doi:10.6017/ihe.2017.91.10122

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, one individual suggested that racial or other slur types are “just words, someone calling you a slur is not like someone assaulting you or whatever.” Another user stated that the U.S. courts do not care about “hurt feelings” and that “the people trust that the Supreme court protect our rights using logical reasoning not sensitive irrational feelings, in order to prevent both Anarchy and Biased laws.” Some even used hate words in what appeared to be “displays” of their freedom of speech, for example, by using racial slurs or insults directed at LGBTQ+ communities, demonstrating a sense of entitlement and immunity within the space. In discounting the emotional harms associated with hateful speech—particularly for people in marginalized groups—and using language and provocations that would ordinarily be socially sanctioned in the larger public sphere, these users “weaponized” the unlimited free speech that the forum claims to provide (Bangstad 2014; Eschmann 2019; Scott 2018; Sultana 2018). As in many other online environments, covert racism becomes overt, or “unmasked,” on this forum, with implications offline: racial dynamics online can impact how people understand and respond to racial dynamics offline (Eschmann 2019, 433).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some even used hate words in what appeared to be "displays" of their freedom of speech, for example, by using racial slurs or insults directed at LGBTQ+ communities, demonstrating a sense of entitlement and immunity within the space. In discounting the emotional harms associated with hateful speech-particularly for people in marginalized groups-and using language and provocations that would ordinarily be socially sanctioned in the larger public sphere, these users "weaponized" the unlimited free speech that the forum claims to provide (Bangstad 2014;Eschmann 2019;Scott 2018;Sultana 2018). As in many other online environments, covert racism becomes overt, or "unmasked," on this forum, with implications offline: racial dynamics online can impact how people understand and respond to racial dynamics offline (Eschmann 2019, 433).…”

Section: Justifying Absolutismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Moral Discourse of Free Speech: A Virtual Ethnographic Study

Goldman-Hasbun

2022

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freedom of speech has long been considered an essential value in democracies. However, its boundaries concerning hate speech continue to be contested across many social and political spheres, including governments, social media websites, and university campuses. Despite the recent growth of so-called free speech communities online and offline, little empirical research has examined how individuals embedded in these communities make moral sense of free speech and its limits. Examining these perspectives is important for understanding the growing involvement and polarization around this issue. Using a digital ethnographic approach, I address this gap by analyzing discussions in a rapidly growing online forum dedicated to free speech (r/FreeSpeech subreddit). I find that most users on the forum understand free speech in an absolutist sense (i.e., it should be free from legal, institutional, material, and even social censorship or consequences), but that users differ in their arguments and justifications concerning hate speech. Some downplay the harms of hate speech, while others acknowledge its harms but either focus on its epistemic subjectivity or on the moral threats of censorship and authoritarianism. Further, the forum appears to have become more polarized and right-wing-dominated over time, rife with ideological tensions between members and between moderators and members. Overall, this study highlights the variation in free speech discourse within online spaces and calls for further research on free speech that focuses on first-hand perspectives.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Justifying Absolutismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Discourse of Free Speech: A Virtual Ethnographic Study

Goldman-Hasbun

2022

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mass higher education systems in most liberal democratic societies have become 'rainbow' systems that reflect the diversity of the societies in which they are embedded (Scott, 2017). In the context of today's liberal democracies, the campus can be understood as a public space or a pluralistic context involving a variety of different ethical views of the good and political views on how society should be organised (e.g.…”

Section: Defining the Concept Of Toleration For The Campus As A Public Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of its crucial significance for a healthy democratic culture, proposed restrictions on freedom of speech are justifiably met with reservation. However, as Peter Scott (2017) points out, no society has ever granted its citizens unrestricted freedom of speech and no campus can agree that 'anything goes'. Especially in the current political climate, characterised by hate speech, disrespect, fake news, and downright lying, regulations on freedom of speech seem more essential than before.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A discourse theoretical model for determining the limits of free speech on campus

Leiviskä

2020

Educational Philosophy and Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent controversies concerning freedom of expression on university campuses have raised the question of how the limits of free speech can be determined in a justified way in a pluralistic public space such as the campus. The article addresses this question from the viewpoint of two complementary theoretical perspectives: Rainer Forst's respect conception of toleration, and the discourse theory of democracy developed by J€ urgen Habermas and Seyla Benhabib. These theories are argued to provide a non-arbitrary, impartial and procedural model for determining the limits of free speech on campus. Deriving primarily from the discourse model, the article suggests that the limits of freedom of expression on campus should be determined by collective deliberative processes involving the affected students. Moreover, it is argued that, instead of prohibiting controversial topics or views, the university administration and teachers should focus on establishing procedural rules of rational deliberation. This is argued to increase students' understanding of the nature of legitimate democratic discussion and thus accomplish the university's educational task of fostering students' ability to use their freedom of speech in a responsible way.

show abstract

“…But in Arab societies, which are less democratic, the concepts are closer to each other and more like close siblings than cousins. In the Arab World, or many of the Muslim states, the notion that free speech is of lesser quality is absurd, and the words of Joan Scott (2018), “Free speech makes no distinction about quality; academic freedom does,” speaks to a different environment altogether, one where uninformed speech or critical speech, is more mainstream and tends to be fashionable. In some parts of the globe, being an outspoken academic could land a person in jail next to Fariba Adelkhah (Lalanne, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic freedom and knowledge tradition of the Arab heritage

Derbesh

2023

OTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to confront some of the many facets of academic freedom as a whole, including the shared concerns with Western academia, its relationship to the politics of Arab society and the relevance of these issues within local political domains. It attempts to profile the problems hindering societal progress beyond the seemingly defined truth. While this subject has many facets, this article only examines academic freedom within the scope of knowledge and inquiry derived from the revered text of the Qur'ãn, including its relation to democracy and radicalism. It is an effort to refocus Arab intellectual dialogue on its ailing academia. It also argues for Arab society to reclaim its core culture of Islam as an enabler of learning aside from the Eurocentric perspective of academic freedom. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses an expository and persuasive format in its novel perspective. This expository form sets out the argument of academic freedom as being indigenous to Arab-Islamic heritage and pursues a persuasive statement for its resolution. This format outlines the main familiar aspects of academic freedom and lays out its components within Arab-Islamic history. Findings This paper provides insights and arguments supporting its main theory. It suggests that Arabs must judiciously consider what their education will look like and accomplish in the next 100 years, considering the sociopolitical status quo and the chances of changing it. It argues that academic freedom is indigenous to Arab-Islamic early history, academia and knowledge governance. Therefore, Arab academia must not ignore its heritage to examine what hinders education and intellectualism. It concludes with the point that reinstalling a culture of knowledge will create a relevant democracy. Research limitations/implications The implications for research, practice and society are vast. Further academic freedom research would redefine terms of processes, change the role of academic leadership, debunk locally dominated politics, introduce learning-first policies, balance inequalities in gender, abolish academic tribalism and move past colonialist ideas and predominance. For researchers, this point of view would open doors for new scholastic approaches. Practical implications This paper includes practical implications that stem from an approach that would provoke practical possibilities and call for more academic conversations. Further conversations should explore and debate the gaps in Arab-Islamic knowledge history. The Global South of the Arab World or the Middle East and Northern Africa/Southwest Asia North Africa region could consider drafting a contemporary MENA account of a Magna Charta Libertatis Academicae or a Magna Charta Universitatum that is galvanized by Arab revivable heritage. Moreover, It would be productive if Western universities that operate in the Arab World would also take an active role in denouncing undemocratic practices and not merely operate as commercial enterprises. Social implications Realizing academic freedom in Arab institutions will have a positive spillover effect on Arab society, including thriving and free media, freedom of speech and gender issues. Academic freedom is one of the main elements in structuring free political culture that adhere to the principles of tolerance. Academic freedom is necessary for showing all contesting ideas in a better light and, ultimately, achieving a form of intellectual equipoise. Originality/value This paper concerns academic freedom in the Arab-Islamic World. The majority of academic freedom scholarship today assumes a Western democratic context in discussing or even arguing against it. The paper's focus is a novel expansion of that literature.

show abstract

“Free Speech” and “Offensive” Speech on Campus

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

The Moral Discourse of Free Speech: A Virtual Ethnographic Study

The Moral Discourse of Free Speech: A Virtual Ethnographic Study

A discourse theoretical model for determining the limits of free speech on campus

Academic freedom and knowledge tradition of the Arab heritage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About