Care nexiane, segnalo questo interessante saggio di analisi del tema in oggetto, nel quale trovo anche qualche utile elemento in merito alle c.d. "fake news" (nella sezione "The Thinker-Based Argument") https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343 Free Speech and Hate Speech Annual Review of Political Science Vol. 22:93-109 (Volume publication date May 2019) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343 Jeffrey W. Howard - Department of Political Science, University College London --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Abstract Should hate speech be banned? This article contends that the debate on this question must be disaggregated into discrete analytical stages, lest its participants continue to talk past one another. The first concerns the scope of the moral right to freedom of expression, and whether hate speech falls within the right's protective ambit. If it does, hate speech bans are necessarily unjust. If not, we turn to the second stage, which assesses whether speakers have moral duties to refrain from hate speech. The article canvasses several possible duties from which such a duty could be derived, including duties not to threaten, harass, offend, defame, or incite. If there is a duty to refrain from hate speech, it is yet a further question whether the duty should actually be enforced. This third stage depends on pragmatic concerns involving epistemic fallibility, the abuse of state power, and the benefits of counter-speech over coercion. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Dopo una lunga analisi, che vale la pena leggere, nelle conclusioi scrive: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] The first concerns our limited moral motivation. Politicians can be unscrupulous in the quest to maintain power, and there is an enduring worry that they will abuse statutes restricting speech to silence political adversaries. The second, related element concerns our limited epistemic competence about moral matters. Many of our fellow citizens hold mistaken views about what political morality requires and so are liable to suppress speech that they view as dangerous and objectionable but that is, in fact, perfectly legitimate. [...] Finally, there are inherent difficulties in authoring statutes that are not objectionably over-inclusive, leading to the prosecution of speakers who do not merit prosecution. This makes us unavoidably and heavily reliant on prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of hate speech restrictions, which compounds the previous worries. [...] Counter-speech tends to be defended by those who think that the moral right to freedom of expression protects hate speech (e.g., Brettschneider 2012), or who think that the state is morally unreliable. This makes sense; if banning hate speech is morally misguided (for either reason), counter-speech is the only morally permissible remedy. Yet even if we view hate speech as morally unprotected, and even if we would generally trust the state to ban it, it could still be the case that counter-speech is simply more effective at combating hateful views than is the law. That would itself be a powerful consideration against criminalization. [...] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Saluti, Giovanni. -- Giovanni Biscuolo «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.