Kirjahaku

In an ideal democracy, people from all walks of life would come together to talk meaningfully and respectfully about politics. But we do not live in an ideal democracy. In contemporary democracies, which are marked by deep social divisions, different groups for the most part avoid talking to each other. And when they do talk to each other, their speech often seems to be little more than a vehicle for rage, hatred, and deception. Democratic Speech in Divided Times argues that we should nevertheless not give up on the ideal of democratic public speech. Drawing on the resources of political theory, epistemology, and philosophy of language, this book develops a sustained account of the norms that should govern public discourse in deeply divided circumstances. Should we try to find common ground when we talk to our political opponents, even though they seem unreasonable? Should we refrain from expressing anger, if we want to get things done? How can we use our speech to fight hate speech and disinformation? And is it even possible to speak to 'the other side,' in settings where different groups dislike one another, live apart from one another, and don't know much about one another? By tackling these questions, Lepoutre demonstrates that, when governed by the right set of norms, public speech can be a powerful force for good even amidst profound social divisions.

Falsehoods can gravely endanger democratic societies. When disinformation circulates widely, it can alter the outcome of elections, erode trust in democratic institutions, undermine support for critically important policies, or even incite violence. It is therefore natural to conclude that falsehoods should have no place whatsoever in democratic life. Democratic Falsehoods argues that this conclusion is nevertheless too quick. Although many falsehoods pose a clear and serious democratic threat, other falsehoods are more benign, and others still can play an actively positive role within democratic public discourse. This book explores how falsehoods can contribute to performing key functions of democratic public discourse, such as countering hate speech, mobilising collective action, supporting just wars of self-defence, representing constituents, or even promoting public understanding of pressing scientific matters. Can falsehoods advance, rather than hinder, such goals? Under what conditions are they likely to do so? And when, if ever, is it permissible to deploy such falsehoods in a democratic society? By investigating these questions, Democratic Falsehoods aims to show that falsehoods can sometimes play a legitimate role in democratic public life. It demonstrates, moreover, that some falsehoods are legitimate, not in spite of, but precisely because of our commitment to democracy. Finally, but crucially, it provides a comprehensive account of how these falsehoods differ from-and, indeed, can help to counteract-the dangerous falsehoods plaguing contemporary democracies.