In addition, liberals argue that the most these forms of speech can cause is offence. The republican view of freedom as non-domination, meanwhile, means that restrictions need not be viewed as a breach of the right of freedom of speech.
Liberalism's view of freedom of speech as a pre-political right leaves very limited room for restrictions to be made upon speech. This alignment aids in releasing the feminist position from a liberal framework thereby reducing the burden of proof relating to harms derived from pornography that this position has been subjected to. In addition, the neo-Roman republican view is aligned with anti-pornography radical feminism. In this thesis the republican conception of freedom as non-domination is explored as a more suitable account than the liberal one of freedom as non-interference, when dealing with these two forms of speech. This concern stems from the increase in these forms of speech but also due to their mainstreaming in society. Both these forms of speech, identified as 'hard cases' in the literature, are presented as problems that political theorists should be concerned with. The central issue tackled in this thesis is whether there is room for legitimate restrictions upon pornography and extreme right political organisations' racist hate speech whether such restrictions can be made without breaching generally accepted liberal rights and within a democratic context.
0 kommentar(er)
