Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124820
題名: 德沃金與瓦爾準論仇恨言論: 合法性論證V.S.反合法性論證
Dworkin and Waldron on Hate Speech: The Legitimacy Argument vs. the Anti-legitimacy Argument
作者: 梁欣
Liang, Xin
貢獻者: 鄭光明
梁欣
Liang, Xin
關鍵詞: 仇恨言論
德沃金
瓦爾準
合法性
日期: 2019
上傳時間: 7-Aug-2019
摘要: 德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)提出合法性論證,主張政府不應該限制仇恨言論。他指出,對仇恨言論的限制會影響各種立場平等表達意見的機會,使得在此限制下通過的下游法律失去合法性。瓦爾準(Jeremy Waldron)則試圖論證,因為仇恨言論總是可以被非仇恨言論代替,在限制仇恨言論的情況下,各種立場平等表達意見的機會不會被影響,下游法律的合法性也不會受到影響。韋恩斯坦站在德沃金的角度反對瓦爾準對仇恨言論的論述,而瓦爾準亦予以反駁。然而瓦爾準始終沒有很好地解决這一問題:非仇恨言論何以代替仇恨言論來表達意見?對這一問題的解答,是加強瓦爾準的反合法性論證的關鍵。\n筆者在本文中試圖解決這一問題。首先,筆者將解答如何區分仇恨言論的內容與形式,藉此討論非仇恨言論為何可以傳達仇恨言論的內容。除此之外,筆者將進一步指出,限制仇恨言論,不會對各個立場平等表達意見的機會造成影響,只會對各個立場表達意見的能力造成限制。透過對這一問題的解決,筆者為瓦爾準的反合法性論證辯護。
參考文獻: 英文参考文献\nDelgado.R. (1982). Words that Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 17, 133.\n\nDworkin, R. (1996). MacKinnon’s words. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 356-363). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.\n\nDworkin, R. (1999). Pornography. London: Women`s Press.\n\nDworkin, R. (2009). Foreword. In Hare, I., & Weinstein, J. (eds.). Extreme Speech and Democracy (pp.i-ix).New York: Oxford University Press.\n\nDworkin, R. (2014). Taking Rights Seriously. London: Bloomsbuy.\nEdmonds.D.&N. Warburton.(2014). Philosophy Bites Again. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press\nFeinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n\nFish, S. (1994).There`s No Such Thing as Free Speech…and it`s a good thing too, New York: Oxford University Press.\n\nLangton, R. (1993). Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22(4), 293-330.\n\nLangton, R. (1998). Subordination, Silence, and Pornography’s Authority. In R.C. Post (Ed.), Censorship and silencing: Practice of Cultural Regulation (pp. 261-283). Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities.\n\nLangton, R. (2014). Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10(4), 865-873.\n\nMacKinnon, B. (2001). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.\n\nMacKinnon, C (1993). Only Words. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.\n\nMassey, C. (1992). Hate Speech, Cultural Diversity, and the Foundational Paradigms of Free Expression, 40 UCLA L. Rev. 103.\n\nMatsuda, M (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment.New York: Routledge.\n\nMill, J. (1978). On Liberty. London: Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.\n\nMoran, M. (1994). Talking About Hate Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of American and Canadian Approaches to the Regulation of Hate Speech, 1994 Wisc. L. Rev. 1425, 1452 n.113.\n\nSellars, A. (2016). Defining Hate Speech: Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20.\n\nSmith, D. (2006). Timeline: a history of free speech. The Guardian.\n\nPuddephatt, A. (2005) .Freedom of Expression, In Hodder Arnold, The Essentials of Human Rights, (pp.128).\n\nWaldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.\n\nWaldron, J, (2017) The Conditions of Legitimacy: A Response to James Weinstein : Constitutional Commentary. (pp. 697-714).\n\nWarburton, N. (2009). Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.\n\nWard, K. (1998). Free Speech and the Development of Liberal Virtues: An Examination of the Controversies Involving Flag Burning and Hate Speech, 52 U.Miami L. Rev. 733.\n\nWeinstein, J. (2017). Hate Speech Bans, Democracy, and Political Legitimacy: Constitutional Commentary. (pp. 527-583).\n\n中文參考文獻\n鄭光明,(2015),<瓦爾準和藍騰論仇恨言論>,《東吳哲學學報》,第32期,頁1-36。\n張原斌,(2016),《德沃金與藍騰論仇恨言論》,國立政治大學哲學研究所碩士學位論文。
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
哲學系
105154017
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1051540171
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.