Krasemann - Blog Post 8

 

In the introduction of When the State Speaks, What Should It Say?, Corey Brettschneider considers the persuasive role the state ought to play in facilitating the protection of rights. He believes that the state “expresses itself to defend the very values that underlie rights, including freedom of expression and religion” (7). I am interested in considering what role ordinary citizen’s play in the facilitation of the protection of rights, if at all.

 

Brettschneider makes clear that “I suggest that we distinguish between a state’s coercive power, or its ability to place legal limits on hate speech, and its expressive power, or its ability to influence beliefs and behavior by “speaking” to hate groups and the larger society.” (3). The state should criticize hateful views. It should act in a manner that does not restrict freedom of expression, but rather encourages individuals and groups to act under legitimate law. While the state has this role, what role do individuals have in convincing “citizens to adopt the values that underlie legitimate law” (7)? It makes sense that the state can be held more accountable than individuals, but where is the line drawn about the responsibility to enforce legitimacy and freedom?

 

Brettschneider also explains that “My aim is to preserve the doctrine of viewpoint neutrality in the protection of free speech rights, while rejecting viewpoint neutrality in state speech” (9). In other words, the state must not remain neutral when criticizing certain groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, on its heinous acts. Individuals must be able to retain biases in their actions and speech, but they may also choose to act neutral in situations. Should individuals also have a duty to reject neutrality when confronting issues that undermine legitimate law and freedom, such as confronting the Ku Klux Klan? Or is that purely the role of the state?

 

If we assume that the state and individuals have no duty to enforce similar degrees of criticism in public settings, then the issue of where to draw the line between the two becomes cloudy. On the other hand, if the state and the individual have the same duty to enforce criticism when necessary, then the two can work more in unity and cooperation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more