Att tiga är guld? : En argumentationsanalys kring yttrandefriheten och nutida krav om inskränkningar

• Main Author: Stålbrandt, Mikael
• Format: Others
• Language: Swedish
• Published: Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för statsvetenskap (ST) 2016
• Subjects: John Stuart Mill; First Amendment; Trigger Warning; Microagression; Lars Vilks; Charlie Hebdo
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-53057

Freedom of speech is under serious threat in the west, primarily in the US with policies and regulations infringing on this core value in democratic societies. Universities form policy in order to silence opinions they find contradictory to their values, causing students and teachers alike to risk academic punishment for statements which normally would be guarded within the First Amendment. The central argument behind these infringments are individuals subjective feelings towards, as one may put it, controversial opinions. The aim of this study is through an argument analysis, illustrate the values of freedom of speech in contrast to the demands of primarily minority groups and their advocates, using respectable philosophers and scientists such as John Stuart Mill to answer the question if infringements are applicable in democracies. The conclusions drawn in this essay based on all relevant arguments concludes the answer to be no; a democracy should not infringe on the freedom of speech to safeguard individuals from negative emotional reactions as a result of any legal speech.