Responsibility for Silence

Ayala, Saray; Vasilyeva, Nadya

doi:10.1111/josp.12151

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Universal counterspeech duties may also derive support from a ‘silence as violence’ principle. In some situations, not confronting harmful speech can function as a tacit support for it, thus contributing to the harms that it brings about (Ayala & Vasilyeva, 2016).…”

Section: The Deontic Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterspeech

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Counterspeech is communication that tries to counteract potential harm brought about by other speech. Theoretical interest in counterspeech partly derives from a libertarian ideal -as captured in the claim that the solution to bad speech is more speech -and partly from a recognition that well-meaning attempts to counteract harm through speech can easily misfire or backfire. Here we survey recent work on the question of what makes counterspeech effective at remedying or preventing harm, in those cases where it is effective, as well as work investigating when and why there is a duty to engage in counterspeech. We suggest that the most fruitful area for philosophical inquiry on this topic, currently, relates to the questions about efficacy. Specifically, we argue that there is a need for better frameworks for conceptualizing the efficacy of counterspeech. Philosophers have collaborative work to do, alongside social scientists, in developing these frameworks.

show abstract

Section: The Deontic Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterspeech

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sometimes, this is because we accommodate them. Ayala and Vasilyeva (2016) argue that an interlocutor who remains silent when problematic presuppositions provides the conditions without which the problematic presuppositions cannot come into being. Thus, one's silence actually contributes to part of the harm that is done through presuppositions, and one can thus be held at least in part morally responsible for the harm.…”

Section: A Pro Tanto Duty To Vandalizementioning

confidence: 99%

Political vandalism as counter‐speech: A defense of defacing and destroying tainted monuments

Lai

2020

European J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tainted political symbols ought to be confronted, removed, or at least recontextualized. Despite the best efforts to achieve this, however, official actions on tainted symbols often fail to take place. In such cases, I argue that political vandalism-the unauthorized defacement, destruction, or removal of political symbols-may be morally permissible or even obligatory. This is when, and insofar as, political vandalism serves as fitting counter-speech that undermines the authority of tainted symbols in ways that match their publicity, refuses to let them speak in our name, and challenges the derogatory messages expressed through a mechanism I call derogatory pedestalling: the glorification or honoring of certain individuals or ideologies that can only make sense when members of a targeted group are taken to be inferior.

show abstract

“…67 Licensing and accommodations are two possible expressions of confirmatory agency that, in practice, can hide behind subtle ways to help hate speech to gain force, such as silence and omission. 68 For instance, in contexts, such as Yiannopoulos's shows, in which the default interpretation might be that the audience identifies with the hater, silent hearers play in fact an active role in facilitating hate speech. 69 Taken as a whole, this section is partial proof of what I take to be relatively intuitive idea.…”

Section: Confirmatory Agencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Counterspeakers should not remain silent, because silence is not a discursive act that others can interpret solely as an act of disapproval. 90 Counterspeakers should also show that their exit is not selfish or weak but publicly motivated by what haters are saying. In this way, acts of distancing can be a form of informal sanction that holds speakers accountable for their representative claims.…”

Section: Counterspeech As Distancing From Hatersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterspeech and Ordinary Citizens: How? When?

Fumagalli

2020

Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central to the still-nascent normative literature on counterspeech is the widespread belief that citizens should engage discursively with haters and the effects of hate speech. It is also increasingly clear that discursive engagement with intolerant members of society should be understood as a continuous and extended series of different and connected actions. Much less has been said about the ways that attempts in persuasion and direct responses to hate speech relate to one another and about when specific counterspeech actions should happen. This essay advances a more expansive and refined account of counterspeech, which is understood as a combination of continuous discursive engagement with intolerant members of society and acts of distancing from haters (shaming, correcting falsehoods, “Not in my name” campaigns, protests, and forms of discursive exit). After reconsidering discursive agency distribution (that is, who is an active participant, how, and when) around public hate speech, I show that continuous discursive engagement with intolerant members of society should be interrupted by visible acts of distancing when haters make hateful representative claims.

show abstract

Responsibility for Silence

Cited by 14 publications

References 18 publications

Counterspeech

Counterspeech

Political vandalism as counter‐speech: A defense of defacing and destroying tainted monuments

Counterspeech and Ordinary Citizens: How? When?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About