What does it mean to be ‘free’? The simple and immediate answer that comes for many people is probably, ‘I am free if I am able to choose what I do.’ Whilst this may be true, it fails to address...Show moreWhat does it mean to be ‘free’? The simple and immediate answer that comes for many people is probably, ‘I am free if I am able to choose what I do.’ Whilst this may be true, it fails to address key issues in the discussion of freedom, such as how or if freedom can be attainable if others are hindering your will. This paper will seek to examine what is meant by ‘freedom’ beginning with an overview of free will and how this relates to freedom itself. The works of Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) will be used to examine freedom alongside some of his critics such as Rousseau and Kant. Further to this the ethical question of freedom of speech will be remarked upon with relation to Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology. Finally Berlin’s ideas about freedom will be applied to Peterson’s arguments for the protection of free speech as well as those who argue against Peterson in the public forums of a televised debate and a televised discussion panel, in which Peterson was a participant. This research combines the disciplines of philosophy, culture and socio-politics to attempt to reach a well formulated and in depth conclusion answering the question, “How does the philosophical concept of ‘liberty’, as understood by Isaiah Berlin, relate to the ethical and socio- political freedom of speech debate, specifically pertaining to discussion of freedom of speech versus usage of gender pronouns in the discussion of gender identity and identity ethics?”Show less
Where do the European Court of Justice and national tribunals draw the line between freedom of speech and the protection of minorities? How is social coherence in democratic societies pursued if...Show moreWhere do the European Court of Justice and national tribunals draw the line between freedom of speech and the protection of minorities? How is social coherence in democratic societies pursued if linguistic insults drive a wedge between citizens? Recent attempts to ban hate speech, court cases on Holocaust denials, and the condemnation of comedy expressions reveal the vibrant intersection of freedom of expression and hate speech. With the aim of providing an outlook on the juridical, political, and ideological future of EU member-states, this thesis investigates some of the implications of attempts to legally enforce speech. Focusing on the prosecution of Geert Wilders since 2014, I argue that the victim of hate speech is always influenced by a historicity that exceeds the present, regardless of context. Furthermore, I will state that the roots of insults lie in the antagonisms of modern democratic societies that encapsulate latent enmity and a lack of tolerance. I therefore propose to address hurt through public debate and not law, since the latter is a mere regulatory instrument of human behavior. Finally, the criminalization of speech narrows the space for debate and ignores and reinforces societal antagonisms: the deep-rooted cause of distrust and conflict that is once to blossom.Show less
This thesis seeks to explore the topic of religiously offensive cartoons, taking the attack on Charlie Hebdo in January 2015 as a starting point. After applying the legal framework and different...Show moreThis thesis seeks to explore the topic of religiously offensive cartoons, taking the attack on Charlie Hebdo in January 2015 as a starting point. After applying the legal framework and different legal philosophical justifications for free speech to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, the analysis will take a closer look at a similar controversy in Denmark. As in the Danish cartoon controversy, analysing the broader socio-political context can provide a deeper understanding of the root causes of the protests following the attack. Drawing on critical discourse analysis this thesis investigates the question to what extend the public discourse on free speech in France after the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the role of French Muslims in this debate reflect power relations within the French society. Such power relations indeed manifest themselves in this discourse as it was the official side who started the discourse and had the power to chose wording, meaning of concepts, the topoi and to define ingroups and outgroups. Societal inequalities can also be noticed through participation and representation of French Muslisms and their interaction to the other groups present in the discourse.Show less
