政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/124820
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 91913/122132 (75%)
造访人次 : 25798231      在线人数 : 262
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧:
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号",以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻,建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段,可获得较完整数据
  • 进阶搜寻
    政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 哲學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/124820


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124820


    题名: 德沃金與瓦爾準論仇恨言論: 合法性論證V.S.反合法性論證
    Dworkin and Waldron on Hate Speech: The Legitimacy Argument vs. the Anti-legitimacy Argument
    作者: 梁欣
    Liang, Xin
    贡献者: 鄭光明
    梁欣
    Liang, Xin
    关键词: 仇恨言論
    德沃金
    瓦爾準
    合法性
    日期: 2019
    上传时间: 2019-08-07 16:25:29 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)提出合法性論證,主張政府不應該限制仇恨言論。他指出,對仇恨言論的限制會影響各種立場平等表達意見的機會,使得在此限制下通過的下游法律失去合法性。瓦爾準(Jeremy Waldron)則試圖論證,因為仇恨言論總是可以被非仇恨言論代替,在限制仇恨言論的情況下,各種立場平等表達意見的機會不會被影響,下游法律的合法性也不會受到影響。韋恩斯坦站在德沃金的角度反對瓦爾準對仇恨言論的論述,而瓦爾準亦予以反駁。然而瓦爾準始終沒有很好地解决這一問題:非仇恨言論何以代替仇恨言論來表達意見?對這一問題的解答,是加強瓦爾準的反合法性論證的關鍵。
    筆者在本文中試圖解決這一問題。首先,筆者將解答如何區分仇恨言論的內容與形式,藉此討論非仇恨言論為何可以傳達仇恨言論的內容。除此之外,筆者將進一步指出,限制仇恨言論,不會對各個立場平等表達意見的機會造成影響,只會對各個立場表達意見的能力造成限制。透過對這一問題的解決,筆者為瓦爾準的反合法性論證辯護。
    參考文獻: 英文参考文献
    Delgado.R. (1982). Words that Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 17, 133.

    Dworkin, R. (1996). MacKinnon’s words. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 356-363). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Dworkin, R. (1999). Pornography. London: Women's Press.

    Dworkin, R. (2009). Foreword. In Hare, I., & Weinstein, J. (eds.). Extreme Speech and Democracy (pp.i-ix).New York: Oxford University Press.

    Dworkin, R. (2014). Taking Rights Seriously. London: Bloomsbuy.
    Edmonds.D.&N. Warburton.(2014). Philosophy Bites Again. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press
    Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Fish, S. (1994).There's No Such Thing as Free Speech…and it's a good thing too, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Langton, R. (1993). Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22(4), 293-330.

    Langton, R. (1998). Subordination, Silence, and Pornography’s Authority. In R.C. Post (Ed.), Censorship and silencing: Practice of Cultural Regulation (pp. 261-283). Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities.

    Langton, R. (2014). Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10(4), 865-873.

    MacKinnon, B. (2001). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    MacKinnon, C (1993). Only Words. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Massey, C. (1992). Hate Speech, Cultural Diversity, and the Foundational Paradigms of Free Expression, 40 UCLA L. Rev. 103.

    Matsuda, M (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment.New York: Routledge.

    Mill, J. (1978). On Liberty. London: Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

    Moran, M. (1994). Talking About Hate Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of American and Canadian Approaches to the Regulation of Hate Speech, 1994 Wisc. L. Rev. 1425, 1452 n.113.

    Sellars, A. (2016). Defining Hate Speech: Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20.

    Smith, D. (2006). Timeline: a history of free speech. The Guardian.

    Puddephatt, A. (2005) .Freedom of Expression, In Hodder Arnold, The Essentials of Human Rights, (pp.128).

    Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Waldron, J, (2017) The Conditions of Legitimacy: A Response to James Weinstein : Constitutional Commentary. (pp. 697-714).

    Warburton, N. (2009). Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

    Ward, K. (1998). Free Speech and the Development of Liberal Virtues: An Examination of the Controversies Involving Flag Burning and Hate Speech, 52 U.Miami L. Rev. 733.

    Weinstein, J. (2017). Hate Speech Bans, Democracy, and Political Legitimacy: Constitutional Commentary. (pp. 527-583).

    中文參考文獻
    鄭光明,(2015),<瓦爾準和藍騰論仇恨言論>,《東吳哲學學報》,第32期,頁1-36。
    張原斌,(2016),《德沃金與藍騰論仇恨言論》,國立政治大學哲學研究所碩士學位論文。
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    哲學系
    105154017
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1051540171
    数据类型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU201900649
    显示于类别:[哲學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    没有与此文件相关的档案.



    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈