Before the law: A Ricoeurian approach to civil discourse

References

• Aragaki, H. (1993). Communicative ethics and the morality of discourse. PRAXIS International, 13(2), 154–171.
   Google Scholar
• Arnett, R. C., & Arneson, P. (1999). Dialogic civility in a cynical age: Community, hope, and interpersonal relationships. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Black, W. L., Jr. (2017). When teachers go viral: Balancing institutional efficacy against the first Amendment rights of public educators in the age of Facebook. Missouri Law Review, 82(1), 51–90.
   Google Scholar
• Bracci, S. L. (2002). The fragile hope of Seyla Benhabib’s interactive universalism. In S. L. Bracci & C. G. Christians (Eds.), Moral engagement in public life: Theorists for contemporary ethics (pp. 123–149). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Brison, S. J. (1998). The autonomy defense of free speech. Ethics, 108(2), 312–339. doi:10.1086/233807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunker, M. D. (1996). First amendment theory and conceptions of the self. Communication Law and Policy, 1(2), 241–269. doi:10.1080/10811689609368604
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cloud, D. (2017). Civility as a threat to academic freedom. First Amendment Studies, 49(2015), 13–17. doi:10.1080/21689725.2015.1016359
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1993). Freedom of expression. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22(3), 207–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Content-neutral speech regulation. (2015). Constitutionality of time, place, and manner restrictions. Supreme Court Debates, 18(2), 11–13.
   Google Scholar
• Day, J. P. (2000). More about mill on free expression. Journal of Social Philosophy, 31(2), 189–194. doi:10.1111/0047-2786.00040
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. (1986). A matter of principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gintis, H., Henrich, J., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2008). Strong reciprocity and the roots of human morality. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 241–253. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0067-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golding, M. P. (2000). Free speech on campus. Washington, D.C: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Grey, T. C. (1992). Civil rights vs. civil liberties: The case of discriminatory verbal harassment. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(5), 485–516. doi:10.1080/00221546.1992.11778386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse ethics: Notes on philosophical justification. In S. Benhabib & F. Dallmayr (Eds.), The communication ethics controversy (pp. 60–110). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hatfield, K. L., Schafer, K., & Stroup, K. (2005). A dialogic approach to combating hate speech on college campuses. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 13(1), 41–55. doi:10.1207/s15456889ajc1301_3
   Google Scholar
• Hemmer, J. J., Jr. (1995). Hate speech: The egalitarian/libertarian dilemma. Howard Journal of Communications, 5(4), 307–330. doi:10.1080/10646179509361674
   Google Scholar
• Humenik, C. (2001). Introduction to the first Amendment. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 2(2), 255.
   Google Scholar
• Kidder, J. L., & Binder, A. J. (2021). The politics of speech on campus. Sociological Forum, 36(2), 338–358. doi:10.1111/socf.12681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambe, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of censorship: Reconceptualizing public willingness to censor. Communication Law and Policy, 7(2), 187–235. doi:10.1207/S15326926CLP0702_05
   Google Scholar
• Lee, O. (2001). Legal weapons for the weak? Democratizing the force of words in an uncivil society. Law & Social Inquiry, 26(4), 847–891. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2001.tb00326.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKinnon, C. A. (1993). Only words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuda, M. J., & Lawrence, C. R., III. (1993). Words that wound. Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first Amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Park, M. K. (2021). A matter of public concern: The case for academic freedom rights of public university faculty. Communication Law and Policy, 26(1), 32–52. doi:10.1080/10811680.2021.1856602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsay, M. (2012). The status of hearers’ rights in freedom of expression. Legal Theory, 18(1), 31–68. doi:10.1017/S1352325211000255
   Google Scholar
• Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative: Volume 1. K. McLaughlin and D. Pellauer. Trans., Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226713519.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. (Kathleen Blamey, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ricoeur, P. (2000). The just: Volume 1. (David Pellauer, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rubenfeld, J. (1998). Did the fourteenth Amendment repeal the first? Michigan Law Review, 96(7), 2140. doi:10.2307/1290063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruth, J. (2021). When academic bullies claim the mantle of free speech. Chronicle of Higher Education, 67(15), 1.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, L. G., Tyahur, P. M., & Jackson, J. A. (2016). Civility and academic freedom: Extending the conversation. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 6(3/4), 50–61.
   Google Scholar
• White, D. M. (1970). Negative liberty. Ethics, 80(3), 185–204. doi:10.1086/291768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, R. G. (2020). Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech (February 21, 2020). Indiana University Robert H McKinney School of Law Research Paper 2020-3. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3542561
   Google Scholar