How should we understand the relation between law and morality? And what might this answer mean for human rights?
Disagreement about our moral duties and obligations is inevitable. But this does not show that morality is a matter of opinion or that ethics is subjective.
Mill endorsed free and open debate as a machine capable of refining and reinforcing truth. There were, however, limits. On his view, political correctness is not a restriction of free speech but a basic tenet.
In assessing the different sides of the debate there are a number of relevant factors at play from relative commercial value to social message and even historical injustice.
What obligations do those in the entertainment industry have to the public in the wake of criminal allegations? Is censorship ever appropriate prior to legal conviction? Must public use be a political act?
In memoir writing, where's the line between tell-all and telling too much?
Pinterest quietly removed anti-vaccination content from the site, making both 'anti-vax' and 'vaccine' unsearchable. Was this the right thing to do?
Was Thomas Hobbes right about human nature, and is Facebook proving it?
Ex post facto laws allow us to avoid retroactive legislation. But in the era after #MeToo, maybe there are some crimes that should be punished after the fact.
Just how reliable are student evaluations of teachers at the end of the semester? Often, they reveal biases.