Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124820| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭光明 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | 梁欣 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Liang, Xin | en_US |
| dc.creator | 梁欣 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | Liang, Xin | en_US |
| dc.date | 2019 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-07T08:25:29Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-08-07T08:25:29Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-08-07T08:25:29Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G1051540171 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124820 | - |
| dc.description | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 哲學系 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 105154017 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 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。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章、導論........1\n1.1 言論自由....1\n1.2 仇恨言論的定義.....2\n1.3 傷害原則與仇恨言論......4\n1.4 冒犯原則與仇恨言論.....11\n1.5 民主平等權與仇恨言論..........13\n1.6 小結.....................15\n\n第二章、德沃金與瓦爾準：合法性論證vs反合法性論證.........17\n2.1 合法性.....................17\n2.2 德沃金的合法性論證.............17\n2.3 瓦爾準的反合法性論證........19\n2.4 小結.................................24\n\n第三章、韋恩斯坦與瓦爾準：對反合法性論證的批評與回應.....26\n3.1 韋恩斯坦的批評.......................26\n3.2 反機會論證及瓦爾準的回應.............27\n3.3 反程度論證及瓦爾準的回應...33\n3.4 反尊嚴論證及瓦爾準的回應..........41\n3.5 小結........................................44\n\n第四章、瓦爾準的反合法性論證可能面臨的批評及筆者的回應..46\n4.1 仇恨言論的內容與形式........46\n4.2 發表言論的機會與能力..........53\n4.3 小結........................................58\n\n第五章、結論.................60\n英文參考文獻..................................64\n中文參考文獻..................................66 | zh_TW |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1051540171 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 仇恨言論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 德沃金 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 瓦爾準 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 合法性 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | 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 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Dworkin and Waldron on Hate Speech: The Legitimacy Argument vs. the Anti-legitimacy Argument | en_US |
| dc.type | thesis | en_US |
| dc.relation.reference | 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。 | zh_TW |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6814/NCCU201900649 | en_US |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| item.fulltext | No Fulltext | - |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.grantfulltext | none | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.