Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Living Edition
| Editors: Henk ten Have

Freedom of Speech

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_201-1

Abstract

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that can be defended on consequentialist and deontological grounds. Free speech in bioethics has been under threat for 50 years and is perhaps more vulnerable since the millennium due to the new rhetoric of intolerance and new laws suppressing speech. Nevertheless, it is evident that free speech is a necessity for the proper conduct of bioethics, especially given the ethical challenges that the global diffusion of biotechnology has brought and will continue to bring. That necessity can be defended on the very same grounds that the general liberty can be defended.

Keywords

Freedom Liberty Right Duty Speech Expression Bioethics Global Consequences Autonomy Self-possession Self-assertion 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Flew, A. (1991). Thinking about social thinking. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  2. Giubilini, A., & Minerva, F. (2013). After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(5), 261–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Holmes, O. W. (1919). Dissenting in Abrams V. United States. 250 US 616. Supreme Court.Google Scholar
  5. Mill, J. S. (1859/1975). On liberty. In Three essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Savulescu, J. (2013). Abortion, infanticide and allowing babies to die, 40 years on. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(5), 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Scanlon, T. (1972). A theory of free expression. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 204–226.Google Scholar
  8. Shackel, N. (2005). The vacuity of postmodernist methodology. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Shackel, N. (2013a). The fragility of freedom of speech. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(5), 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shackel, N. (2013b). Pseudoscience and idiosyncratic theories of rational belief. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), The philosophy of pseudoscience. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Singer, P. (2001). On being silenced in Germany. In Writings on an ethical life. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  12. Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thouless, R. H., & Thouless, C. R. (2011). Straight and crooked thinking (4th ed.). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  14. Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Yandle, B. (1983). Bootleggers and baptists: The education of a regulatory economist. Regulation, 7(3), 12–16.Google Scholar

Further Readings

  1. Haworth, A. (1998). Free speech. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hume, M. (2015). Trigger warning: Is the fear of being offensive killing free speech? London: William Collins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical EthicsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK