{"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}
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.
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.