Abstract
This paper argues that what scholars call ‘the free speech principle’ is not one principle but a slew of principles, and that these principles harbour several important differences that have remained largely unremarked upon, namely: (i) extending vs. limiting principles; (ii) comparative vs. non-comparative principles; and (iii) monistic vs. pluralistic principles. The paper also critically assesses certain generalisations that people might be tempted to make about these different principles, such as that one kind of free speech principle is harder to defend than another. Finally, the paper teases out the practical as well as theoretical implications of these insights, including degrees of complexity, the logical relationship between free speech principles and free speech policy dilemmas, and the virtue of compromise over free speech principles.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence |
Early online date | 21 Nov 2024 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 21 Nov 2024 |
Keywords
- Compromise
- Free speech
- Hate Speech
- Normative Principles