學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
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 7-八月-2019 16:25:29 (UTC+8) 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。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Delgado.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.Dworkin, R. (1996). MacKinnon’s words. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 356-363). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Dworkin, R. (1999). Pornography. London: Women`s Press.Dworkin, R. (2009). Foreword. In Hare, I., & Weinstein, J. (eds.). Extreme Speech and Democracy (pp.i-ix).New York: Oxford University Press.Dworkin, R. (2014). Taking Rights Seriously. London: Bloomsbuy.Edmonds.D.&N. Warburton.(2014). Philosophy Bites Again. Oxford,UK: Oxford University PressFeinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fish, S. (1994).There`s No Such Thing as Free Speech…and it`s a good thing too, New York: Oxford University Press.Langton, R. (1993). Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22(4), 293-330.Langton, 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.Langton, R. (2014). Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10(4), 865-873.MacKinnon, B. (2001). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.MacKinnon, C (1993). Only Words. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.Massey, C. (1992). Hate Speech, Cultural Diversity, and the Foundational Paradigms of Free Expression, 40 UCLA L. Rev. 103.Matsuda, M (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment.New York: Routledge.Mill, J. (1978). On Liberty. London: Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Moran, 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.Sellars, A. (2016). Defining Hate Speech: Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20.Smith, D. (2006). Timeline: a history of free speech. The Guardian.Puddephatt, A. (2005) .Freedom of Expression, In Hodder Arnold, The Essentials of Human Rights, (pp.128).Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Waldron, J, (2017) The Conditions of Legitimacy: A Response to James Weinstein : Constitutional Commentary. (pp. 697-714).Warburton, N. (2009). Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.Ward, 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.Weinstein, J. (2017). Hate Speech Bans, Democracy, and Political Legitimacy: Constitutional Commentary. (pp. 527-583).中文參考文獻鄭光明，（2015），<瓦爾準和藍騰論仇恨言論>，《東吳哲學學報》，第32期，頁1-36。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 dc.contributor.advisor 鄭光明 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 梁欣 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Liang, Xin en_US dc.creator (作者) 梁欣 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Liang, Xin en_US dc.date (日期) 2019 en_US dc.date.accessioned 7-八月-2019 16:25:29 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 7-八月-2019 16:25:29 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 7-八月-2019 16:25:29 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G1051540171 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124820 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 哲學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 105154017 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (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。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........11.1 言論自由....11.2 仇恨言論的定義.....21.3 傷害原則與仇恨言論......41.4 冒犯原則與仇恨言論.....111.5 民主平等權與仇恨言論..........131.6 小結.....................15第二章、德沃金與瓦爾準：合法性論證vs反合法性論證.........172.1 合法性.....................172.2 德沃金的合法性論證.............172.3 瓦爾準的反合法性論證........192.4 小結.................................24第三章、韋恩斯坦與瓦爾準：對反合法性論證的批評與回應.....263.1 韋恩斯坦的批評.......................263.2 反機會論證及瓦爾準的回應.............273.3 反程度論證及瓦爾準的回應...333.4 反尊嚴論證及瓦爾準的回應..........413.5 小結........................................44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..464.1 仇恨言論的內容與形式........464.2 發表言論的機會與能力..........534.3 小結........................................58第五章、結論.................60英文參考文獻..................................64中文參考文獻..................................66 zh_TW dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1051540171 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 仇恨言論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 德沃金 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 瓦爾準 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合法性 zh_TW dc.title (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 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Dworkin and Waldron on Hate Speech: The Legitimacy Argument vs. the Anti-legitimacy Argument en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 英文参考文献Delgado.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.Dworkin, R. (1996). MacKinnon’s words. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 356-363). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Dworkin, R. (1999). Pornography. London: Women`s Press.Dworkin, R. (2009). Foreword. In Hare, I., & Weinstein, J. (eds.). Extreme Speech and Democracy (pp.i-ix).New York: Oxford University Press.Dworkin, R. (2014). Taking Rights Seriously. London: Bloomsbuy.Edmonds.D.&N. Warburton.(2014). Philosophy Bites Again. Oxford,UK: Oxford University PressFeinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fish, S. (1994).There`s No Such Thing as Free Speech…and it`s a good thing too, New York: Oxford University Press.Langton, R. (1993). Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22(4), 293-330.Langton, 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.Langton, R. (2014). Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10(4), 865-873.MacKinnon, B. (2001). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.MacKinnon, C (1993). Only Words. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.Massey, C. (1992). Hate Speech, Cultural Diversity, and the Foundational Paradigms of Free Expression, 40 UCLA L. Rev. 103.Matsuda, M (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment.New York: Routledge.Mill, J. (1978). On Liberty. London: Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Moran, 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.Sellars, A. (2016). Defining Hate Speech: Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20.Smith, D. (2006). Timeline: a history of free speech. The Guardian.Puddephatt, A. (2005) .Freedom of Expression, In Hodder Arnold, The Essentials of Human Rights, (pp.128).Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Waldron, J, (2017) The Conditions of Legitimacy: A Response to James Weinstein : Constitutional Commentary. (pp. 697-714).Warburton, N. (2009). Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.Ward, 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.Weinstein, J. (2017). Hate Speech Bans, Democracy, and Political Legitimacy: Constitutional Commentary. (pp. 527-583).中文參考文獻鄭光明，（2015），<瓦爾準和藍騰論仇恨言論>，《東吳哲學學報》，第32期，頁1-36。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 (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201900649 en_US
