Department of Psychological Sciences, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Am Psychol. 2022 Nov;77(8):890-891. doi: 10.1037/amp0001008.
O'Donohue and Fisher (2022) make some good arguments about how free speech has been jeopardized in recent years, but few if any of those arguments concern psychologists directly. Furthermore, because free speech is codified in the First Amendment, it is unclear why or how its inclusion in the (American Psychological Association, 2017), would add anything meaningful. The arguments posed by O'Donohue and Fisher are far ranging but seldom specific to the work of psychologists. While the additional language on free speech might be well suited for the Ethics Code's aspirational principles, the proposed amendment is neither suitable nor necessary within the enforceable standards. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
奥唐纳和费舍尔（2022）就近年来言论自由受到的威胁提出了一些有价值的观点，但这些观点几乎没有直接涉及到心理学家。此外，由于言论自由在第一修正案中有所规定，因此不清楚为什么或如何将其纳入《美国心理协会伦理准则》（American Psychological Association, 2017）会增加任何有意义的内容。奥唐纳和费舍尔提出的论点范围很广，但很少针对心理学家的工作。虽然关于言论自由的附加语言可能非常适合道德准则的理想原则，但拟议的修正案在可执行标准中既不适当也不必要。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
