Freedom of expression, deliberation, autonomy and respect

Abstract

This paper elaborates on the deliberative democracy argument for freedom of expression in terms of its relationship to different dimensions of autonomy. It engages the objection that Enlightenment theories pose a threat to cultures that reject autonomy and argues that autonomy-based democracy is not only compatible with but necessary for respect for cultural diversity. On the basis of an intersubjective epistemology, it argues that people cannot know how to live on mutually respectful terms without engaging in public deliberation and developing some degree of personal autonomy. While freedom of expression is indispensable for deliberation and autonomy, this does not mean that people have no obligations regarding how they speak to each other. The moral insights provided by deliberation depend on the participants in the process treating one another with respect. The argument is related to the Danish cartoon controversy.

Respect and Disrespect in Deliberation Across the Networked Media Environment: Examining Multiple Paths of Political Talk

“…In contrast, attacks to individuals on a personal level were more common during the flux of a debate. Our results again indicate that respect for others' moral standing may enable dialogue; and speakers can advance their claims and continue to differ about values, preferences and interests (Gutmann & Thompson, ; Rostbøll, ).…”

“…Public debates that play out freely in everyday life help citizens to process what should be respected and the reasons behind individuals' commitments (Bohman & Richardson, ; Conover & Searing, ; Laden, ; Maia, , ; Mansbridge, ; Rostbøll's, ). The objectives of this article have both empirical‐analytical and theoretical implications.…”

“…To recognize the merit of certain claims, we endorse Rostbøll's (, p. 12) argument built on the Habermasian position that respect, as a practical matter, should not be placed outside the process of public deliberation. As this scholar observes, “we cannot know how to live on mutually respectful terms without engaging in common deliberation” (Rostbøll, , p. 21).…”

“…To recognize the merit of certain claims, we endorse Rostbøll's (, p. 12) argument built on the Habermasian position that respect, as a practical matter, should not be placed outside the process of public deliberation. As this scholar observes, “we cannot know how to live on mutually respectful terms without engaging in common deliberation” (Rostbøll, , p. 21). While we need a minimum commitment to respect others before we enter into deliberation, we only know what respect means and implies in particular situations when we gain concrete insight, as is determined in common deliberation by the affected parties.…”

‘We Cannot Give One Millimetre’? Liberalism, Enlightenment and Diversity

“…Rostbøll, we have seen, appeals to Kant in the context of his discussion of the Danish cartoons affair, seeking to avoid the either/or alternative of autonomy or diversity as embodied, respectively, in Galston's Enlightenment and Reformation liberalism. We have seen that it is upon the basis of Kant's ideal of equal respect, in which individuals are treated as ends in themselves, that Rostbøll seeks to conceive of a wider ideal of autonomy, capable of affirming forms of diversity, such as the religious perspective of Muslims within this affair, including them as equal ‘colegislators’ and ‘codeliberators’ in any debate concerning the propriety of the cartoons (see Rostbøll, , pp. 627–8, pp.…”