Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Scope of Tolerance is the third book in a trilogy that started with The Boundaries of Liberty and Tolerance, and continued with Speech, Media and Ethics: The Limits of Free Expression. All three books are concerned with boundaries and are interdisciplinary in nature. While the first was in the fields of political science, philosophy and law; the second and third are in the fields of communication, applied ethics, and law. The three books supplement each other and together aim to establish a coherent and comprehensive study on the intriguing issue of limits to free expression.The Scope of Tolerance is about the limits of tolerance and the costs of freedom of expression. The concept of tolerance and its legitimate scope lies at the centre of analysis. It considers problematic expressions that require society to pay a certain price if tolerated. The analysis includes discussions on media invasion into one's privacy; offensive speech; incitement; hate speech and Holocaust denial, and finally media coverage of terrorism. The book's primary aim is to formulate precepts and mechanisms designed to prescribe boundaries to freedom of expression conducive to safeguard democracy. This interdisciplinary study combines theory and practice, examining the issues of contention from philosophical, legal and media perspectives. Its methodology involved extensive literature survey (books, journal and newspapers articles, classified documents), study of law and precedents as well as interviews with experts in media ethics, constitutional law and political extremism in Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.Yossi Nehushtan has limited his review to four of the ten book's chapters (including the Conclusion). The bulk of his discussion is concerned with the scope of tolerance and its moral reasoning (chapter 1). He also addresses the issue of offense to sensibilities (chapters 4 and 5) and the issue of incitement (chapter 6). At the end of the review he describes my rationales for the role of responsible media in a free democracy. With his review, Nehushtan has forced me to rethink complicated issues and to address some difficult questions. For this I am grateful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".