A Republican Conception of Counterspeech

Abstract

Abstract‘Counterspeech’ is often presented as a way in which individual citizens can respond to harmful speech while avoiding the potentially coercive and freedom-damaging effects of formal speech restrictions. But counterspeech itself can also undermine freedom by contributing to forms of social punishment that manipulate a speaker’s choice set in uncontrolled ways. Specifically, and by adopting a republican perspective, this paper argues that certain kinds of counterspeech can dominate when they contribute to unchecked social norms that enable others to interfere arbitrarily with speakers. The presence of such domination can pose just as much a threat to freedom of speech as unchecked formal restrictions by threatening an individual’s discursive status, revealing a problem for those who defend counterspeech as a freedom-protecting alternative. Rather than rejecting both counterspeech and legislation outright, however, this paper argues that the republican principle of parsimony ought to be exercised when deciding on appropriate harmful speech response. While the principle of parsimony allows for suitably-checked formal punishment for some of the most egregious forms of harmful speech, citizen-led counterspeech must be guided by a reliable set of norms against the use of social punishment where those who do engage in social punishment face certain costs. The presence of robust, widely-known, and reliable norms thus supports both formal and informal responses to harmful speech while maintaining a secure discursive status for all.

Counterspeakers’ Perspectives: Unveiling Barriers and AI Needs in the Fight against Online Hate

“…Some recipients of counterspeech (i.e., speaker behind hate speech) are not intentionally saying harmful things and could be willing to change. Therefore, call-out based [104] online shaming [131] and domination [141] which could escalate conflict or lead to harm [85] should be avoided.…”