Publications-NSC Projects
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 言論自由的限度：以猥褻言論以及仇恨言論為例析之 其他題名 The Obscene and the Hateful: Studies in the Limits of Free Speech. 作者 鄭光明 貢獻者 行政院國家科學委員會
國立政治大學哲學系關鍵詞 哲學;言論自由;猥褻言論;仇恨言論 日期 2011 上傳時間 14-Nov-2011 10:50:24 (UTC+8) 摘要 自1990年以降，美國政治哲學界出現了一股反對穆勒 (John Stuart Mill) 的言論自由的主張：其一是以蕭爾 (Frederick Schauer) 為首的「言論自由的懷疑論」(the free speech skepticism)，其二則是以史特勞斯 (David Strauss) 以及費斯 (Owen Fiss) 為代表的「言論自由的修正論」(the free speech revisionism)。依「言論自由的懷疑論」，自由主義對於言論自由理想的追求，不僅是誤入歧途，而且還會不自覺得落入種族主義 (racism) 的泥沼。另一方面，依「言論自由的修正論」，穆勒的自由原則值得捍衛，然而穆勒對於言論自由的絕對捍衛，則應該稍作妥協才是。相較之下，我們則可稱穆勒對言論自由的主張為「言論自由的絕對主義」(the free speech absolutism)。本計畫首先要問：究竟那一個主張才站得住腳呢？其次，對於言論自由問題，許多學者主張我們應以「平衡進路」(the balancing approach to speech rights) 來加以考量。所謂「平衡進路」，是首先把言論自由從「自由領域」(the sphere of liberty) 中剔除，並把它和其他價值放在天平兩端加以考量，以便考量那一個價值最終應勝出。我們要問：「平衡進路」是否站得住腳呢？這是本研究計畫所將處理的兩大主要問題。為此，本計畫將首先深入探討自由主義主張言論自由背後的理由所在，包括對「自主原則」(the principle of autonomy)、「勸服原則」(the persuasion principle)、「觀念的自由市場論證」(the marketplace of ideas argument)、消極/積極自由等理論之深入探究，期能從根本回答上述兩大主要問題。對這兩個主要問題的深入探究，不僅能使我們更能明瞭何謂言論自由，也能使我們更能明瞭言論自由的相關爭論 (如仇恨言論以及色情問題) 背後的根本衝突所在。
Free expression has never lacked adversaries. There has recently emerged a new wave of arguments favoring the regulation of speech and expression. In this project, I will begin by briefly distinguishing two different approaches in which it has been claimed that freedom of speech should be rejected: the liberal revisionism and the free speech skepticism. Whereas they both reject freedom of speech, they do so in different ways and to different degrees. The liberal revisionists attempt to argue from John Stuart Mill’s premises to the conclusion that certain opinions—for instance, pornography and hate speech—can, at least in principle, be legitimately suppressed. The revisionists suggest that their approach merely sacrifices low-quality speech. The free speech skeptics, on the other hand, view the liberal ideal of freedom of expression as misguided or worse. My primary concern in this project will be the liberal revisionists. I will see if liberal revisionism will chill far more speech than is actually prosecuted, and whether it will undermine legitimate moral and political debate. Moreover, I will see if Mill’s classically liberal and unfashionably absolutist defense of free speech proves much better than the revisionist version. Establishing the validity of the arguments of this project can be seen as contributing to a more general project. Most obviously, it will help us to sketch the outlines of a way of understanding the right to free speech. Key Words: freedom of speech, hate speech, Frederick Schauer, David Strauss, Owen Fiss, Daniel Jacobson, the persuasion principle, the principle of autonomy, censorship關聯 基礎研究
學術補助
研究期間:10008~ 10107
研究經費:638仟元資料類型 report dc.contributor 行政院國家科學委員會 en_US dc.contributor 國立政治大學哲學系 en_US dc.creator (作者) 鄭光明 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2011 en_US dc.date.accessioned 14-Nov-2011 10:50:24 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 14-Nov-2011 10:50:24 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 14-Nov-2011 10:50:24 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/51955 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) 自1990年以降，美國政治哲學界出現了一股反對穆勒 (John Stuart Mill) 的言論自由的主張：其一是以蕭爾 (Frederick Schauer) 為首的「言論自由的懷疑論」(the free speech skepticism)，其二則是以史特勞斯 (David Strauss) 以及費斯 (Owen Fiss) 為代表的「言論自由的修正論」(the free speech revisionism)。依「言論自由的懷疑論」，自由主義對於言論自由理想的追求，不僅是誤入歧途，而且還會不自覺得落入種族主義 (racism) 的泥沼。另一方面，依「言論自由的修正論」，穆勒的自由原則值得捍衛，然而穆勒對於言論自由的絕對捍衛，則應該稍作妥協才是。相較之下，我們則可稱穆勒對言論自由的主張為「言論自由的絕對主義」(the free speech absolutism)。本計畫首先要問：究竟那一個主張才站得住腳呢？其次，對於言論自由問題，許多學者主張我們應以「平衡進路」(the balancing approach to speech rights) 來加以考量。所謂「平衡進路」，是首先把言論自由從「自由領域」(the sphere of liberty) 中剔除，並把它和其他價值放在天平兩端加以考量，以便考量那一個價值最終應勝出。我們要問：「平衡進路」是否站得住腳呢？這是本研究計畫所將處理的兩大主要問題。為此，本計畫將首先深入探討自由主義主張言論自由背後的理由所在，包括對「自主原則」(the principle of autonomy)、「勸服原則」(the persuasion principle)、「觀念的自由市場論證」(the marketplace of ideas argument)、消極/積極自由等理論之深入探究，期能從根本回答上述兩大主要問題。對這兩個主要問題的深入探究，不僅能使我們更能明瞭何謂言論自由，也能使我們更能明瞭言論自由的相關爭論 (如仇恨言論以及色情問題) 背後的根本衝突所在。 en_US dc.description.abstract (摘要) Free expression has never lacked adversaries. There has recently emerged a new wave of arguments favoring the regulation of speech and expression. In this project, I will begin by briefly distinguishing two different approaches in which it has been claimed that freedom of speech should be rejected: the liberal revisionism and the free speech skepticism. Whereas they both reject freedom of speech, they do so in different ways and to different degrees. The liberal revisionists attempt to argue from John Stuart Mill’s premises to the conclusion that certain opinions—for instance, pornography and hate speech—can, at least in principle, be legitimately suppressed. The revisionists suggest that their approach merely sacrifices low-quality speech. The free speech skeptics, on the other hand, view the liberal ideal of freedom of expression as misguided or worse. My primary concern in this project will be the liberal revisionists. I will see if liberal revisionism will chill far more speech than is actually prosecuted, and whether it will undermine legitimate moral and political debate. Moreover, I will see if Mill’s classically liberal and unfashionably absolutist defense of free speech proves much better than the revisionist version. Establishing the validity of the arguments of this project can be seen as contributing to a more general project. Most obviously, it will help us to sketch the outlines of a way of understanding the right to free speech. Key Words: freedom of speech, hate speech, Frederick Schauer, David Strauss, Owen Fiss, Daniel Jacobson, the persuasion principle, the principle of autonomy, censorship en_US dc.language.iso en_US - dc.relation (關聯) 基礎研究 en_US dc.relation (關聯) 學術補助 en_US dc.relation (關聯) 研究期間:10008~ 10107 en_US dc.relation (關聯) 研究經費:638仟元 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 哲學;言論自由;猥褻言論;仇恨言論 en_US dc.title (題名) 言論自由的限度：以猥褻言論以及仇恨言論為例析之 zh_TW dc.title.alternative (其他題名) The Obscene and the Hateful: Studies in the Limits of Free Speech. en_US dc.type (資料類型) report en
