Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno.
Am Psychol. 2022 Nov;77(8):892-893. doi: 10.1037/amp0001040.
The ethically proper response to problematic speech is more speech and not censorship. To the extent that Jackson (2022) and Smith (2022) advocate for all to be able to criticize all, for example, for unempowered undergraduates to criticize privileged White male professors or for anyone to criticize racist or hate speech, we are in agreement. The speech involved in criticism can be risky and hence ought to be protected by the (American Psychological Association, 2017). However, except in very circumscribed circumstances, to the extent that Jackson or Smith advocate for acts such as the suppression, censorship, or punishment of speech, we are in disagreement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
对于有问题的言论，合乎道德的恰当回应是更多的言论，而不是审查。例如，在杰克逊（2022）和史密斯（2022）都主张所有人都能够批评所有人的范围内，允许没有权力的本科生批评享有特权的白人男性教授，或者任何人都能够批评种族主义或仇恨言论，我们是一致的。批评所涉及的言论可能有风险，因此应该受到（美国心理协会，2017）的保护。然而，除非在非常有限的情况下，杰克逊或史密斯主张压制、审查或惩罚言论等行为，我们是不同意的。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
