认真对待合法性：回归道义论

Constitutional commentary Pub Date : 2017-09-22 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.3209155

Eric Heinze

{"title":"认真对待合法性：回归道义论","authors":"Eric Heinze","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3209155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Opponents of hate speech bans commonly suggest that messages can enjoy full freedom of expression, but government may nevertheless legitimately regulate the manner of expression. That is often true, as with adjusting noise volumes or preventing litter. However, hate speech bans always impose penalties solely on the basis of offensive or provocative viewpoints, and therefore can never plausibly be called regulations of the sheer manner of expression.","PeriodicalId":81001,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional commentary","volume":"32 1","pages":"631-650"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking Legitimacy Seriously: A Return to Deontology\",\"authors\":\"Eric Heinze\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3209155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Opponents of hate speech bans commonly suggest that messages can enjoy full freedom of expression, but government may nevertheless legitimately regulate the manner of expression. That is often true, as with adjusting noise volumes or preventing litter. However, hate speech bans always impose penalties solely on the basis of offensive or provocative viewpoints, and therefore can never plausibly be called regulations of the sheer manner of expression.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Constitutional commentary\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"631-650\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Constitutional commentary\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3209155\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional commentary","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3209155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

摘要

反对禁止仇恨言论的人通常认为，信息可以享有充分的表达自由，但政府仍然可以合法地规范表达方式。这通常是正确的，就像调整噪音音量或防止垃圾一样。然而，仇恨言论禁令总是仅仅根据冒犯性或挑衅性的观点来施加惩罚，因此永远不能被合理地称为对纯粹表达方式的规定。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Taking Legitimacy Seriously: A Return to Deontology

Opponents of hate speech bans commonly suggest that messages can enjoy full freedom of expression, but government may nevertheless legitimately regulate the manner of expression. That is often true, as with adjusting noise volumes or preventing litter. However, hate speech bans always impose penalties solely on the basis of offensive or provocative viewpoints, and therefore can never plausibly be called regulations of the sheer manner of expression.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Constitutional commentary

自引率

0.00%

发文量