In the final chapter of Speech Matters, Seana Shiffrin argues that institutions have especially stringent duties to protect speech freedoms. In this article, I develop a few lines of criticism. First, I question whether Shiffrin’s framework of justified suspended contexts is appropriate for institutional settings. Second, I challenge the presumption that the knowledge-gathering function performed by police is necessarily compromised by insincere practices. Third, I criticize Shiffrin’s characterization of the university as involving a complete repudiation of enforced consensus, and I express doubts about the close connection between education and democratic legitimation that Shiffrin endorses. Finally, I raise a problem with the book’s overall argument: even if one agrees that speech freedoms are necessary for moral development, they also may be threatening to moral development. The upshot is that the protection of speech should be modulated in order to account for the potential conflicts between sincerity and other valuable ends, rather than being oriented above all to sincerity.

中文翻译：

---

诚信是社会制度的第一美德吗？警察、大学和言论自由

在 Speech Matters 的最后一章中，Seana Shiffrin 认为机构在保护言论自由方面负有特别严格的职责。在这篇文章中，我提出了一些批评意见。首先，我质疑 Shiffrin 的正当悬置语境框架是否适用于制度设置。其次，我质疑警察执行的知识收集功能必然会因不诚实的做法而受到损害的假设。第三，我批评 Shiffrin 对大学的描述涉及对强制共识的完全否定，我对 Shiffrin 认可的教育与民主合法性之间的密切联系表示怀疑。最后，我对这本书的整体论点提出了一个问题：即使有人同意言论自由对于道德发展是必要的，它们也可能威胁到道德发展。结果是，应调整言论保护，以解决真诚与其他有价值的目的之间的潜在冲突，而不是首先以真诚为导向。