NEFRET SÖYLEMİ VE ŞİDDET İLİŞKİSİ ÜZERİNE JEREMY WALDRON VE ANTHONY LEWİS’İN YAKLAŞIMLARI
Karadağ Thorpe, Zübeyde
xmlui.mirage2.itemSummaryView.MetaDataShow full item record
Whether hate speech should be treated as a form of free speech or not is a contemporary political dilemma. Jeremy Waldron and Anthony Lewis represent opposing sides of this dilemma. Both defend the values of democracy but disagree about what these values imply in the case of hate speech. For Waldron hate speech is a form of group defamation which harms dignity and societal assurance. He argues that a democratic state has a duty to regulate hate speech to protect its citizens. Then the question becomes whether a liberal democratic state has the right to restrict speech. Lewis argues that hate speech is protected under freedom of speech which is the guarantee for a democracy. If speech is regulated by the state then democratic society would be harmed. Waldon is right about the harm in hate speech, but limiting free speech would also harm democratic society. Lewis is also right about freedom of speech as it protects democracy, but he fails seeing the harm in hate speech. Therefore it creates a dilemma. In this thesis it will be argued that hate is a moral failure of a person who reasons in a wrong and selfish way. Rather than taking hate speech as legal issue, focusing on the moral character of citizens would be more effective solution. Second, it will be argued that freedom of speech is a contract of a democratic society as it allows its citizens to be involved in the process of deliberation, no matter how aggressive or hateful it is. Hate speech law undermines the autonomy of citizen and the deliberation process in a democratic society. Third, the harm of hate speech is best seen in terms of an equity right. Equity is an ambiguous right that cannot be forced on people legally but only binds morally.
The following license files are associated with this item: