Free Speech and the Protection of Human Dignity in Canada, Germany, and the United States: The Moral Legitimation of Competing Discourses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing ethnic and cultural diversity in Western societies, debates over hate speech and free speech have become an increasingly prominent part of the political landscape. The Canadian, German, and American constitutions represent three different approaches to these issues. How do these different approaches derive their legitimacy? In answering this question, the chapter discusses the details of each country’s approach to hate speech laws, including its bill of rights and relevant Supreme Court decisions, and identifies the implicit moral dimensions. This chapter makes the argument that the legitimation of concepts such as human dignity, hate speech, and free speech is of a fundamentally moral nature. The analysis draws on the work of Émile Durkheim, who writes extensively about moral forms of legitimation. According to his analysis, the individual in the modern West has become a sacred object, and bills of rights are sacred, moral documents that enshrine the protection of the individual person.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".