Archiwum Filozofii Prawa
i Filozofii SpołecznejJournal of the Polish Section of IVR ISSN 2082-3304Logo of the Polish Section of IVRPolish Section of IVR ↗

Research article

No Thoughts Barred: In Defence of (Nearly) Absolute Academic Freedom

Article authors
  1. Przemysław Rybiński

Wszystkie myśli dozwolone. W obronie (niemal) absolutnej wolności nauki

Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, nr 4(45)/2025, s. 112-124

DOI 10.36280/afpifs.2025.4.112 ↗
Issue
nr 4(45)/2025
Pages
112-124
Published
Article language
English

English

Abstract

There is no agreement as to whether academic freedom is a variation (perhaps a subset) of freedom of speech – which is individual in its character and which governs a person’s relations with other persons and with the state – or a cluster of rules unlike freedom of speech, which has a different origin and which is enjoyed by the academic community as a whole. Irrespective of which of these claims is true, some concepts that originated in US case law on the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States may well be imported to the discourse on the scope of academic freedom held within the civil law tradition. In light of both the functionalist and natural law positions on the nature of freedom of speech, this article argues three points about the normative environment of academia: first, academic freedom (freedom of research, freedom of teaching) is rooted in natural human curiosity and urge to communicate; second, the error-correcting features of the scientific method are consistent with self-correcting features observed in static normative systems such as systems of professional ethics in professions of public trust; third, any normative environment of the academia must conform with the notions of content neutrality and a marketplace of ideas. These points suggest that academic freedom cannot be subject to limitations, whether external (relating to law, scoring systems or funding) or internal (relating to non-merit based themes of discourse). Key words: freedom of speech, academic freedom, content neutrality, marketplace of ideas, ethics

Full text PDF How to cite

References

57 reference entries

References

  1. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments,

  2. https://www aaup org/sites/default/files/1940%20Statement pdf (dostęp: 11 11 2025)

  3. Abbot D, Bikfalvi A, Bleske-Rechek A L, et al, In Defense of Merit in Science, „Controversial Ideas” 2023, vol 3, no 1, s 1–26, doi: 10 35995/jci03010001

  4. Amar A R, America’s unwritten constitution: the precedents and principles we live by, Basic Books, New York 2015

  5. Amar A R, The First Amendment’s Firstness, „UC Davis Law Review” 2014, vol 47, no 4, s 1015–1035

  6. Arendt H, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Meridian Books, Cleveland – New York 1958

  7. Banaszak B, Prawo konstytucyjne, Wydawnictwo C H Beck, Warszawa 2008

  8. Barnett R E, Restoring the lost constitution: the presumption of liberty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 2014

  9. Bartoszewicz M, Wolność słowa w nauczaniu jako komponent wolności akademickiej. Zagadnie -nia wybrane, „Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego” 2025, t 84, nr 2, s 115–127, https://doi org/

  10. Black H L, The Bill of Rights, „New York University Law Review” 1960, vol 35, s 865–881

  11. Bocheński J M, Lewica, religia, sowietologia, oprac J Parys, Morex, Warszawa 1996

  12. Bocheński J M, Sto zabobonów: krótki filozoficzny słownik zabobonów, Wydawnictwo Philed, Kra-ków 1994

  13. Caughie P L, The Word That Dare Not Speak Its Name, „Controversial Ideas” 2023, vol 3, no 2, s 1–16, doi: 10 35995/jci03020002

  14. Chełminiak K, Pobihon J J, Wyzwania dla wolności prasy w erze informacji [w:] Współczesne wy -zwania i strategie ochrony praw człowieka. Perspektywa międzynarodowa, cz 2, red A Kalisz, Wydawnictwo Naukowe ArchaeGraph, Łódź 2024, s 25–37

  15. Dworkin R M, Biorąc prawa poważnie, tłum T Kowalski, PWN, Warszawa 1998

  16. Epstein R A, The classical liberal Constitution: the uncertain quest for limited government, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass 2017 Free Speech and Academic Freedom, 2016, https://www law columbia edu/news/archive/free- -speech-and-academic-freedom (dostęp: 11 03 2025)

  17. Hamburger P, Natural Rights, Natural Law, and American Constitutions, „Yale Law Journal” 1993, vol 102, s 907–960

  18. Klonick K, The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech, „Harvard Law Review” 2018, vol 131, no 6, s 1598–1670

  19. Luban D, Professional Ethics [w:] A Companion to Applied Ethics, eds R G Frey, C H Wellman, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Wiley 2005, s 583–596

  20. McMahan J, Minerva F, Singer P, Editorial, „Controversial Ideas” 2024, vol 4, no 2, s 1–4, doi:

  21. Mill J S, O wolności. Utylitaryzm, tłum A Kurlandzka, M Ossowska, Bellona, Warszawa 2024

  22. Muller S, Wilhelm von Humboldt and the University in the United States of America, „Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest” 1985, vol 6, no 3, s 253–256, https://secwww jhuapl edu/techdigest/ content/techdigest/pdf/V06-N03/06-03-Muller pdf (dostęp: 11 03 2025)

  23. Pearce R, Academic freedom and the paradox of tolerance, „Nature Human Behaviour” 2021, vol 5, no 11, s 1461, doi: 10 1038/s41562-021-01214-5

  24. Popper K R, Droga do wiedzy: domysły i refutacje, tłum S Amsterdamski, PWN, Warszawa 1999

  25. Rybiński P, Petryfikacja i zakotwiczenie. O legalizacji etyki prawniczej, „Studia Iuridica” 2020, nr 83, s 212–219, doi: 10 31338/2544-3135 si 2020-83 14

  26. Scalia A, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, ed A Gutmann, Princeton Univer-sity Press, Princeton – Oxford 2018

  27. Steinhoff U, Against the Harm Argument for Censorship: On the Abuse of Psychology and the Dis -missal of Rights, „Controversial Ideas” 2023, vol 3, no 1, s 1–16, doi: 10 35995/jci03010004

  28. Turley J, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, Simon & Schuster, New York 2024

  29. Veber M, The Ethics of No Platforming: Defending the Defense of Immoral Ideas on University Cam-puses, „Controversial Ideas” 2024, vol 4, no 2, s 1–16, doi: 10 35995/jci04020012

  30. Veber M, The Epistemology of No Platforming: Defending the Defense of Stupid Ideas on University Campuses, „Controversial Ideas” 2021, vol 1, no 1, s 1–20, doi: 10 35995/jci01010006

  31. Wojciechowski M, Holmes, seria: Horyzonty Filozofii Prawa, Wydawnictwo Arche, Sopot 2023

  32. Zajadło J, Co to są hard cases? [w:] Fascynujące ścieżki filozofii prawa 2, red J Zajadło, K Zeidler, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2021, s 11–22

  33. Zajadło J, Po co prawnikom filozofia prawa?, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2024

Case law

  1. Abrams v.

  2. United States, 250 U S 616 (1919)

  3. Schenck v.

  4. United States, 249 U S 47 (1919)

  5. Terminiello v.

  6. Chicago, 337 U S 1 (1949)

  7. Sweezy v.

  8. New Hampshire, 354 U S 234 (1957)

  9. United States, 367 U S 290 (1961)

  10. New York Times Co. v.

  11. Sullivan, 376 U S 254 (1964)

  12. Brandenburg v.

  13. Ohio, 395 U S 444 (1969)

  14. United States, 403 U S 713 (1971)

  15. Police Dept. of City of Chicago v.

  16. Mosley, 408 U S 92 (1972)

  17. Erznoznik v.

  18. City of Jacksonville, 422 U S 205 (1975)

  19. Texas v.

  20. Johnson, 491 U S 397 (1989)

  21. Rock Against Racism, 491 U S 781 (1989)

  22. Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 20 lutego 2007 r, P 1/06, Dz U Nr 36 poz 234

  23. Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd et al. v.

  24. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U S 617 (2017)

Publication information

Author and affiliation

Przemysław Rybiński

Uniwersytet Gdański

Issue data

Issue nr 4(45)/2025

Pages
112-124
Published
AccessOtwarty LicenceCC BY 4.0 ↗

How to cite

Bibliographic description and verified export formats.

Format AFPiFS

P. Rybiński, No Thoughts Barred: In Defence of (Nearly) Absolute Academic Freedom, „Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej” nr 4(45)/2025, s. 112–124, DOI: 10.36280/afpifs.2025.4.112

Export citation data