Le débat public à la suite de l’attentat contre Charlie Hebdo – Y a-t-il une éthique de la liberté d’expression ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article a pour objectif d’analyser le débat public sur la liberté d’expression suscité par l’attentat contre Charlie Hebdo en 2015. Il cherche plus précisément à examiner les positions prises par quatre intellectuels québécois (Jean-Pierre Proulx, Jocelyn Maclure, Daniel Weinstock et Pierre Trudel) sur les deux questions du jugement moral qu’il convient de porter sur la publication des caricatures de Mahomet par Charlie Hebdo et de la régulation éthique de la liberté d’expression. L’article montre que deux conceptions de l’éthique s’opposent dans le débat : l’une non rationaliste ; l’autre, raisonnabiliste. Il met ensuite en évidence la carence démonstrative des interventions qu’il propose de caractériser plus précisément comme une déficience argumentative. Finalement, il avance l’idée que l’opposition entre les deux conceptions de l’éthique et la déficience argumentative des interventions illustrent deux traits du débat public moral contemporain : le manque de fondement des justifications morales qui y sont invoquées et sa dissymétrie.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".