English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Hate speech analyses commonly evaluate restrictions on speech or the value of speaking back. Free speech’s negative dimensions are used when assessing restrictions, but the freedom’s positive dimensions are less often considered in relation to counterspeech. Even so, negative and positive dimensions of free expression are always relevant for responses to vilification, and the freedom’s positive dimensions have important implications for the communicative structure underlying democratic public speech. The degree to which that structure comes close to being an environment of sustained plural public speech is an important part of the context in which hate speech and counterspeech arise. The communicative context matters. These structural aspects of free speech played a partial role in dealing with vilification in mass media contexts, but face challenges in current communication environments. The challenges are not unique to hate speech, but they are important for understanding how best to deal with vilification now.

Countering hate speech in context: positive freedom of speech