NEFRET SÖYLEMİ İFADE ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜNÜN BİR PARÇASI MIDIR?

Year 2015, Issue: 61, 55 - 79, 15.07.2015

Devrim Kabasakal Badamchı

Abstract

Günümüzde nefret söylemi, ifade özgürlüğünün kapsamı ve sınırları
bağlamında yoğun bir biçimde tartışılan bir konudur. Nefret söylemi ile
ilgili tartışmaların pratik boyutları olduğu gibi ahlaki ve normatif boyutları
da mevcuttur. Bu çalışma, nefret söyleminin anlamını, ifade özgürlüğünün
kapsamı bağlamında ve temel olarak normatif ve kavramsal bir noktadan
analiz etmektedir. Makale, nefret söyleminin tamamen korunması
gereken bir özgür ifade biçimi olup olmadığı sorusunu sormaktadır. Bu
soruya cevap olarak, nefret söyleminin tamamen korunması gereken bir
özgür ifade biçimi olmadığı çünkü nefret söyleminin ifade özgürlüğünün
iki önemli temel prensibini ihlal ettiği iddia edilmektedir. İlk olarak nefret
söylemi, tüm bireylerin akılcı ve eşit olarak, kendi özerk seçimlerini yaşam
biçimleri doğrultusunda yapma kapasitesi ve hakkına sahip oldukları prensibini
ihlal etmektedir. İkinci olarak nefret söylemi, demokratik katılım ve
müzakerenin evrensel prensiplerini ihlal etmektedir çünkü nefret söylemi,
tüm bireylerin eşit ve özgür statüsünü reddettiği gibi aynı zamanda siyasi
müzakere sürecinde tüm bireyler tarafından kabul edilebilecek makul argümanlar
geliştirmekten uzaktır.

Keywords

Nefret söylemi, ifade özgürlüğü, eşit özerklik, demokratik katılım, demokratik müzakere

Is hate speech part of Freedom of Expression?

Abstract

In contempory world, hate speech is a highly debated issue in relation
to the scope and boundaries of freedom of speech. The debates on
hate speech have normative and moral dimensions as well as practical.
This article analyzes the meaning of hate speech in relation to the scope
of freedom of speech primarily from normative and conceptual points of
view. The main question the paper aims to answer is whether hate speech
can be considered as free speech that should be fully protectedor not. In
response to this question, the argument of the paper is that hate speech can-
not be considered as free speech that should be fully protected because it
violates the two main foundations of freedom of speech. First, hate speech
violates the principle of equal respect that claims all individuals, as rational
and equal beings, have the capacity and right to make autonomous choices
on the basis of their conceptions of good. Second, hate speech violates the
universal principles of democratic participation and deliberation since it
rejects the free and equal status of all individuals in a political community
and also it is far from developing reasonable arguments that can be accepted
by all individuals in political deliberation process.

Keywords

Hate Speech, freedom of speech, equal autonomy, democratic participation, democratic deliberation

References

• • Badamchi Kabasakal, Devrim, “Justifications of Freedom of Speech: Towards a Double-grounded Non-consequentialist Approach”, Philosophy and Social Criticism, doi: 10.1177/0191453714564457, 2014
• • Baker, Edwin, “Autonomyand Hate Speech”, Extreme Speech and Democracy, Ivan Hare and James Weinstein (der), Oxford UniversityPress, 2009, 139-158.
• • Barendt, Eric, Freedom of Speech, Oxford University Press, Oxford Scholarship Online (www.oxfordscholarship.com), 2007.
• • Dworkin, Ronald, “ Is there a Right to Pornography?”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Cilt.1, No. 2, 1981, 177-212.
• • Habermas, Jurgen, “Reconcilitaion Through thePublicUse of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’sPoliticalLiberalism”, The Journal of Philosophy, Cilt. XCII, No.3, March 1995.
• • Habermas, Jurgen, “Reasonableversus “True”, or the Morality of theWorldviews.”, Inclusion of the Other – Studies in Political Theory, Editorler: Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff, MIT Press, 1998.
• • Heyman, Steven,“Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment”, Extreme Speech and Democracy, Derleyenler: Ivan Hare and James Weinstein, Oxford University Press, 2009, 169-174.
• • Heyman, Steven, Free Speech and Human Dignity, Yale University Press, New Haven, Londra, 2008.
• • Levin, Abigail,The Cost of Free Speech- Pornography, Hate Speech and Their Challenge to Liberalism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2010.
• • Lillian, Donna L, “A Thorn By Any Other Name: Sexist Discourse as Hate Speech, Discourse and Society”, Discourse Society, 18,2007, 719.
• • Meiklejohn, Alexander , “The First Amnedment is an Absolute”, The Supreme Court Review, Cilt.1961, 1961, 245-266.
• • Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, Prometheus Books, New York, 1986.
• • O’Neil, Robert M “Hate Speech, FightingWords, and Beyond- Why American Law is Unique”. Albany Law Review, Cilt. 76.1, 467-498.
• • Parekh, Bhikhu, “ Hate Speech- Is There a Case for Banning?”. Public Policy Research. December 2005- February 2006, 213-223.
• • Post, Robert, “Hate Speech”. Extreme Speech and Democracy, Derleyenler: Ivan Hare and James Weinstein, Oxford University Press, 2009.
• • Rawls, John, Political Liberalism, Columbia UniversityPress, New York, 2005.
• • Rawls, John, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.”, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 2005.
• • Raz, Joseph, “Free Expression and Personal Identification”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Cilt.11, no.3,1991, 303-324.
• • Scanlon, Thomas, “Freedom of Speech and Categories of Expression” , The Difficulty of Tolerance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
• • Scanlon, Thomas, “A Theory of Freedom of Speech”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Cilt.1, No.2, 1972, 204-226.
• • Sunstein, Cass. R, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, New York, 1995.
• • Van Mill, David, “Freedom of Speech”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/win2012/entries/freedom-speech/>. (Kış 2012 Edisyonu)