Pluralism is often invoked to justify policing speech about other groups’ beliefs.

Evidence

It has become commonplace to argue that while free speech may be a good, it must necessarily be less free in a plural society. For diverse societies to function and to be fair, so the argument runs, we need to show respect not just for individuals but also for the cultures and beliefs in which those individuals are embedded and which help give them a sense of identity and being. This requires that we police public discourse about those cultures and beliefs both to minimize friction between antagonistic cultures and beliefs and to protect the dignity of those individuals embedded in them. As the sociologist Tariq Modood has put it, that ‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism’ (Modood 2005). — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 657

Categorization

• XREF: This is the multiculturalist accommodationist position (Modood) that the author is arguing against — the rival camp within this chapter’s debate. Connects to the framing of integration as requiring mutual restraint. — connects to: Policing speech obscures the line between offence, hatred, and violence. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 655

Related

• Plural societies need maximal free speech, not speech limits (similarity 0.85)
• Critics of multiculturalism deserve reasoned evaluation, not merely rhetorical condemnation. (similarity 0.80)
• Policing speech obscures the line between offence, hatred, and violence. (similarity 0.79)
• Embedding plural Muslim constituencies serves as prophylactic against unwitting anti-Muslim bias (similarity 0.79)
• Bigoted speech should be countered morally and politically, not legally. (similarity 0.79)