{"id":2878,"date":"2022-04-04T11:26:05","date_gmt":"2022-04-04T10:26:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/?page_id=2878"},"modified":"2022-08-26T11:37:45","modified_gmt":"2022-08-26T10:37:45","slug":"hate-speech-disinformation-and-counterspeech","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/mancept-workshops\/programme-2022-panels\/hate-speech-disinformation-and-counterspeech\/","title":{"rendered":"Hate Speech, Disinformation, and Counterspeech"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”322″][et_pb_fullwidth_menu global_parent=”322″ menu_id=”8″ submenu_direction=”downwards” fullwidth_menu=”off” module_class=”main-navigation” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_layout=”dark” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ module_class=”header-image-section” _builder_version=”3.0.74″ custom_padding=”0px||0px|” custom_css_main_element=”padding-top:0px” transparent_background=”off” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row custom_padding=”||0px|” custom_margin=”||0px|” parallax_method_1=”off” module_class=”header-image” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/257\/2022\/02\/Oxford-Roadcrop.jpg” show_bottom_space=”off” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ border_color_all=”#ffffff” custom_margin=”0px|||” animation_direction=”left” use_border_color=”off” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.74″ custom_padding=”||0px|” transparent_background=”off” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#1d1d1d”][et_pb_row custom_padding=”||0px|” custom_margin=”||0px|” parallax_method_1=”off” module_class=”breadcrumbs-row” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Breadcrumbs (do not remove)” module_class=”breadcrumbs” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” module_alignment=”left” custom_css_main_element=”border-bottom: 1px solid #ececed;” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\nMANCEPT<\/a><\/span><\/span>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.6″]<\/p>\n

Hate Speech, Disinformation, and Counterspeech<\/h1>\n

Maxime Lepoutre and Jonathan Seglow<\/strong><\/p>\n

Arthur Lewis Building 3.008<\/em><\/p>\n

The public discourse of contemporary democracies is rife with dangerous speech\u2014speech that threatens to inflict significant harms on members of these democracies, and on the rules that bind them together. Two overlapping categories of dangerous speech have increasingly been singled out as especially troubling: hate speech, <\/em>which promotes the basic inferiority of vulnerable groups; and disinformation\u2014most notably fake news\u2014which wilfully promotes falsehoods about matters of public concern.<\/p>\n

It is widely recognized that these forms of speech can generate significant social harms. Political theorists have argued that hate speech can incite violence, inflict psychological trauma, and undermine its targets\u2019 dignity. As for disinformation, it can, among other things, amplify public health crises, swing elections, and erode trust in democratic norms. Yet intense disagreement persists about where the basic injustice of such forms of speech lies, and how, if at all, we should respond to it.<\/p>\n

One longstanding dispute concerns legal restrictions. Do the harms of hate speech and disinformation warrant legally prohibiting these forms of speech? One axis of disagreement concerns whether such restrictions would violate the right to free speech. But even if they do not, one might wonder whether, in non-ideal contexts, the state\u2014or alternatively, social media platforms\u2014can safely be entrusted with the power to suppress speech.<\/p>\n

Increasingly, however, attention has shifted to another proposal\u2014the idea of countering hate speech or disinformation with \u2018more speech,\u2019 (or \u2018counterspeech\u2019). The appeal of counterspeech is clear: if \u2018more speech\u2019 constitutes an effective response, then legal restrictions, and the moral risks that attend them, may not be necessary. Yet the efficacy of counterspeech remains deeply contested. Some, drawing on applied philosophy of language, argue that counterspeech is likely to be ineffective or worse. In response, others have sought to articulate more sophisticated forms of counterspeech.<\/p>\n

But even efficacious counterspeech is philosophically controversial. One area of contention concerns duties to counterspeak: Are there such duties? And, if so, how should such duties be distributed between targets of dangerous speech, the state, and other parties? Another worry concerns the moral costs of counterspeech\u2014and, in particular, whether some forms of counterspeech (most notably, shaming approaches to counterspeech) constitute morally legitimate responses to dangerous speech.<\/p>\n

The panel will be devoted to investigating this set of issues. It will therefore welcome contributions on, but not limited to, the following questions:<\/p>\n