无平台和安全空间:大学是否应该比法律要求更多(或更少)地审查言论?

IF 0.1 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Eric Heinze
{"title":"无平台和安全空间:大学是否应该比法律要求更多(或更少)地审查言论?","authors":"Eric Heinze","doi":"10.20901/PM.55.4.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How should higher education respond to legally mandated limits on hateful, discriminatory, or provocative speech? Should public universities fortify government rules in the name of equal dignity for vulnerable groups, by imposing even further restrictions of their own? Or should they oppose such restrictions in the name of free speech? Or should they do neither, seeking neither amplification nor repeal, instead simply joining in whatever the government status quo happens to be, as they would do with most other background legal rules? This article advocates the second position: through a brief examination of ‘no-platforming’ and ‘safe space’ polices, it is argued that, within fully-fledged democracies, viewpoint-selective censorship is always indefensible for higher education. Examples are drawn from high-profile controversies involving far-right speakers as well as pro- and anti-Israel speech. Viewpoint-based censorship generates one of two scenarios, neither of which coheres with the mission of higher education. One the one hand, no-platformers’ declared principles could never be applied with ethical coherence without becoming so broad as to require massive censorship. On the other hand, if those principles are to apply only rarely, then they lose internal consistency and become outright ad hoc impositions of campus decision-makers’ own political preferences.","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.55.4.04","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No-platforming and Safe Spaces: Should Universities Censor more (or less) Speech than the Law Requires?\",\"authors\":\"Eric Heinze\",\"doi\":\"10.20901/PM.55.4.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How should higher education respond to legally mandated limits on hateful, discriminatory, or provocative speech? Should public universities fortify government rules in the name of equal dignity for vulnerable groups, by imposing even further restrictions of their own? Or should they oppose such restrictions in the name of free speech? Or should they do neither, seeking neither amplification nor repeal, instead simply joining in whatever the government status quo happens to be, as they would do with most other background legal rules? This article advocates the second position: through a brief examination of ‘no-platforming’ and ‘safe space’ polices, it is argued that, within fully-fledged democracies, viewpoint-selective censorship is always indefensible for higher education. Examples are drawn from high-profile controversies involving far-right speakers as well as pro- and anti-Israel speech. Viewpoint-based censorship generates one of two scenarios, neither of which coheres with the mission of higher education. One the one hand, no-platformers’ declared principles could never be applied with ethical coherence without becoming so broad as to require massive censorship. On the other hand, if those principles are to apply only rarely, then they lose internal consistency and become outright ad hoc impositions of campus decision-makers’ own political preferences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.55.4.04\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.55.4.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.55.4.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

高等教育应该如何应对法律规定的对仇恨、歧视或挑衅言论的限制?公立大学是否应该以弱势群体平等尊严的名义,通过施加进一步的限制来强化政府的规定?或者他们应该以言论自由的名义反对这种限制?或者他们应该两者都不做,既不寻求扩大,也不寻求废除,而只是简单地加入政府现状,就像他们对大多数其他背景法律规则所做的那样?本文主张第二种立场:通过对“无平台”和“安全空间”政策的简要考察,本文认为,在成熟的民主国家,对高等教育而言,选择性观点审查总是站不住脚的。这些例子来自极右翼演讲者以及支持和反对以色列的言论引发的备受瞩目的争议。基于观点的审查产生了两种情况之一,这两种情况都不符合高等教育的使命。一方面,非平台游戏所宣称的原则不可能在不需要大规模审查的情况下与道德一致性相结合。另一方面,如果这些原则很少适用,那么它们就会失去内部一致性,成为校园决策者自己的政治偏好的直接临时强加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No-platforming and Safe Spaces: Should Universities Censor more (or less) Speech than the Law Requires?
How should higher education respond to legally mandated limits on hateful, discriminatory, or provocative speech? Should public universities fortify government rules in the name of equal dignity for vulnerable groups, by imposing even further restrictions of their own? Or should they oppose such restrictions in the name of free speech? Or should they do neither, seeking neither amplification nor repeal, instead simply joining in whatever the government status quo happens to be, as they would do with most other background legal rules? This article advocates the second position: through a brief examination of ‘no-platforming’ and ‘safe space’ polices, it is argued that, within fully-fledged democracies, viewpoint-selective censorship is always indefensible for higher education. Examples are drawn from high-profile controversies involving far-right speakers as well as pro- and anti-Israel speech. Viewpoint-based censorship generates one of two scenarios, neither of which coheres with the mission of higher education. One the one hand, no-platformers’ declared principles could never be applied with ethical coherence without becoming so broad as to require massive censorship. On the other hand, if those principles are to apply only rarely, then they lose internal consistency and become outright ad hoc impositions of campus decision-makers’ own political preferences.
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
11
审稿时长
3 weeks
期刊介绍: “Politička misao” je akademski časopis za politologiju i srodne discipline, koji od 1964. godine izdaje Fakultet političkih znanosti Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Časopis je u pola stoljeća izlaženja stekao reputaciju središnjeg akademskog politološkog časopisa u Hrvatskoj i šire, naročito u nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji, te u regiji koju čine post-jugoslavenske zemlje. “Politička misao” objavljuje priloge iz područja političkih znanosti i političkih studija općenito, odnosno iz svih poddisciplina politologije: političke teorije, međunarodnih odnosa, komparativne politike, hrvatske politike, javne politike, područnih studija, političke komunikacije, obrambenih i sigurnosnih studija i dr. Također, objavljujemo i članke iz područja koje nije moguće jednoznačno klasificirati po njihovoj pripadnosti samo jednoj disciplini nego se nalaze na „granici“ između dviju ili više disciplina: političke povijesti, ekonomske politike, političke filozofije, političke sociologije, političke psihologije, medijskih i kulturalnih studija i sl. Kao izdanje Fakulteta političkih znanosti u Zagrebu, objavljujemo i članke koji su neposredno vezani uz studijske programe na tom fakultetu. “Politička misao” je posebno zainteresirana za radove o hrvatskoj politici i društvu, za radove koji analiziraju Hrvatsku u globalnom kontekstu, kao i za radove koji istražuju politiku i društvo na Balkanu i u Jugoistočnoj Europi, u Europskoj uniji, u susjedstvu Europske unije, te na Mediteranu – regijama s kojima Hrvatska ima neposredni dodir.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信