freedom of speech

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

Mgr Przemysław Rybiński

University of Wrocław

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

Language: polish

Published: Number 4(2025), pp. 112–124.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2025.4.112

Download

Number of downloads:

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

On Academic Freedom. Commentary on Ronald Dworkin’s Approach

Dr Paweł Jabłoński

University of Wrocław

English abstract: Academic freedom of expression today is caught in the crossfire of many intense culture wars. Traditional liberal defences of free expression and freedom of speech seem to be insufficient. This paper argues that we need a fresh theoretical lens to understand and solve these conflictual situations in which university teachers often find themselves. Adopting an analytical and philosophical approach grounded in legal theory, my paper uses Stanley Fish’s neopragmatist, anti-foundationalist framework to reconceptualize academic freedom of expression. The central thesis of my article is that academic freedom is not an absolute individual right to say anything one pleases but a context-bound freedom defined by academia’s internal norms and purposes. In contrast to liberal theories that invoke universal principles, such as Mill’s “marketplace of ideas” or broad “First Amendment” rights, Fish’s perspective insists that all speech is constrained by its interpretive community. This paper critically evaluates liberal justifications for free academic expression, showing how these rely on abstract foundations that Fish’s neopragmatism calls into question; it reconstructs a Fishian account of academic freedom based on “professional correctness,” the idea that scholars are free only to the extent that their different forms of expression are coherent with the specific professional objectives and standards of scholarly inquiry.

Key words: Ronald Dworkin, academic freedom, freedom of speech, academic teacher, culture of independence

Language: polish

Published: Number 4(2025), pp. 96–111.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2025.4.96

Download

Number of downloads: 170,066

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Freedom of Academic Debate: For All or for the Chosen Ones? Students’ Attitudes Towards Freedom of Speech Limits for Academics

Mgr Ewa Ilczuk, Mgr Andrzej Porębski

Jagiellonian University

English abstract: The results show that students relatively commonly demand that such persons be dismissed from the university or banned from academic activities: application of the harshest consequences was proposed at least once by 38% of respondents. The survey also showed that the respondents’ worldview had a key influence on their decisions: when it was in line with the worldview described in the story, respondents were much more accepting. Meanwhile, neither gender, age, nor the declared value attributed to freedom of speech were significant predictors of acceptance. The obtained results significantly contribute to the discussion about contemporary trends in freedom of speech restriction in academia. They should be taken into account when planning actions aiming at safeguarding academic freedoms. They can also help better understand the sources of academic punitiveness and draw attention to the risks associated with its subjective nature.

Keywords: academic debate, freedom of speech, academic freedom, cancel culture, punitiveness, worldview

Language: polish

Published: Number 4(2025), pp. 21–45.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2025.4.21

Download file

Number of downloads: Invalid download ID.

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Freedom of Speech of an Academic Teacher: Some Conceptual Clarifications and a Landscape of Challenges

dr Paweł Jabłoński, prof. dr hab. Przemysław Kaczmarek, dr Mateusz Wojtanowski

University of Wrocław

English abstract: In presenting this special issue of the “Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej. Journal of the Polish Section of IVR”, we would like not only to briefly introduce the contents of the individual articles that make up this volume but also to attempt to outline the field of research we are entering. We pursue these tasks in the following order. In the introductory section (1) we present the reasons why it is important and necessary today to address the titular issue. Next, we clarify the notion of the “academic teacher” (2). We then discuss the relationship between “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom”, noting that the relation is far less obvious than it might initially appear (3). Subsequently, we propose a division of the spheres of academic expression into three complementary areas, while emphasizing the preliminary and provisional nature of this distinction (4). In the next section (5) we outline one of the core disputes in the field of academic freedom, namely the opposition between activism and passivism. The final section (6) reviews the content of the articles included in this volume.

Keywords: freedom of speech, academic teacher, academic freedom

Language: English

Published: Number 4(2025), pp. 5–20.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2025.4.5

Download

Number of downloads: Invalid download ID.

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Worldview Controversies in a Workplace: Comments from the Theory of Law Perspective on the Cracow IKEA Employee Case

Dr Wojciech Ciszewski

Jagiellonian University

English abstract: The point of departure of my paper is the case of the IKEA employee who lost his job for criticizing the workplace policy followed by his employer. In the paper I analyse two possible versions of the objection discrimination on the ground of belief that can be raised with respect to the employer’s decision. In my opinion neither of these two versions can withstand scrutiny. Regarding the first of these versions – the allegation of belief harassment – I claim that the employer’s action should not be recognized as a form of belief harassment. The criteria that I propose in the paper suggest that the ‘Inclusion of LGBT+…’ regulation was a permissible workplace policy, within the scope of the employer’s authority. Regarding the second version of the allegation of discrimination – the lack of respect for special needs resulting from beliefs – I argue that in this situation the employer was under no obligation to accommodate the employee’s needs resulting from his beliefs. In the light of the criteria formulated in the paper, the employee’s claim for accommodation was weak and it could be overweighed even by a relatively small burden on the employer’s part.

Keywords: principle of nondiscrimination, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, workplace harassment, cultural exemptions

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(22)/2020, pp. 5-20.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2020.1.5

Download: Download
Number of downloads: 163

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White as a Step Towards Greater Politicisation of the Judicial Election in the USA?

Dr Jacek Srokosz

University of Opole

Abstract: The article presents the US Supreme Court judgment issued in 2002 in case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, in which the Court held unconstitutional the clauses which introduced restrictions in presenting the candidates’ views on controversial legal and social issues during the judicial election campaign in Minnesota. The article discusses the essence of the judicial election, the limitations for the candidates during electoral campaigns, and the general dispute about how judges are selected in the US. Against this background, the facts of the case, the decisions of the courts of first and second instances and of the Supreme Court are presented, as well as Antonin Scalia’s argumentation justifying the ruling and the dissenting opinions. The author’s goal is to analyse the Supreme Court’s ruling in the context of its critics’ forecasts that it would result in politicisation of the judicial election process leading to a lowering of the authority of the judiciary and the emergence of doubts about the impartiality and independence of judges.

Keywords: judicial election, politicisation, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, impartiality and independence of judges, accountability of judges, freedom of speech, electoral campaign

Language: Polish

Received: 13.06.2018
Accepted: 10.09.2018

Published: Number 3(18)/2018, pp. 51-63.

Download file: Download
Number of downloads: 312