Freedom of speech and cognitive vices. Kant's and current Kantian perspectives


  • Jean-Christophe Merle



Kant, Mill, Freedom of opinion, Freedom


Whereas liberal philosophers, from Mill to Rawls, traditionally make a plea for a very extensive freedom of opinion and of the press, invoking the no harm principle, in the last two decades, such liberal philosophers as Onora O’Neill and Jürgen Habermas, rightly worrying about the rise of antidemocratic and illiberal tendencies in the social media and on the increasing diffusion of fake news, advocate not only a self-limitation of the press, but also for substantial restrictions on the freedom of the press. Yet, their references to Kant and Mill entail a deep misunderstanding of their argument in favor of the freedom of opinion. This article attempts to demonstrate that, instead of sheltering public debates from wrong contents, one should promote the capacity of judgement of all individual participants against cognitive vices, which requires individuals to be exposed not only to true contents, but also to wrong and noxious contents.

Biografia do Autor

Jean-Christophe Merle

possui graduação em filosofia - Universite de Paris IV (Paris-Sorbonne) (1985), graduação em História - Universite de Paris IV (Paris-Sorbonne) (1987), doutorado em Philosophie - University of Freiburg (1992) e "Habilitação" (corresponden à livre-docência no Brasil) pela Universidade de Tübingen. Atualmente é Professor Titular na Universidade de Tours (França) e Professor Honorário na Universidade de Saarland (Alemanha). É membro do conselho editorial da Faculdade de Direito da UFMG e dep. filosofia. Tem experiência docente e de pesquisa na área de Filosofia, com ênfase em Filosofia prática, tendo publicado vários trabalhos


CASSAM, Quassim. Vices of the Mind. From the Intellectual to the Political. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

CASSAM, Quassim. Conspiracy Theories. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2019a.

FICHTE, Johann Gottlieb. Some Lectures Concerning the Scholar’s Vocation. Early Philosophical Writings. Translated by Daniel Breazeale. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.

HABERMAS, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of Public Sphere. Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1989.

KANT, Immanuel. An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?, in: Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor, and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp.17-22.

MILL, John Stuart. On Liberty. Edited by Currin V. Shields. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1956.

O’NEILL, Onora. A Question of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

O’NEILL, Onora. Rethinking freedom of the press. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 2004.

O’NEILL, Onora. Constructing Authorities. Reason, Politics and Interpretation in Kant’s Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

O’NEILL, Onora. Digital Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.

SCANLON, T.M. The Difficulty of Tolerance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

NIESEN, Peter. Kants Theorie der Redefreiheit. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2008.

O‘ROURKE, K.C. John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression. London: Routledge, 2001.

RAWLS, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971.

RAWLS, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

RICHARDSON, Henry S. Democratic Autonomy. Public Reasoning about the Ends of Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

SCANLON, T.M. The Difficulty of Tolerance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

SUNSTEIN, Cass. R. Infotopia. How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 2006.

WU, Tim. Is the First Amendment Obsolete?. In The Free Speech. Edited by Century Lee Bollinger, and Geoffrey R. Stone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.






Dossiê: Conceitos e concepções de liberdade / Concepts and conceptions of