There is a large literature on how the use of an intolerant style of political rhetoric can erode democratic communication and give people reasons to question their faith in the democratic system. But the reverse is also true: that is, everyday linguistic practices shape political communication by providing stylistic forms and common words. My central claim is that an interactionist interpretation of the more-speech argument offers a normative foundation for a distinctive model of counterspeech as democratic self-defense: counterspeech as decentralized democratic self-defense. The core of this model is the idea that democratic institutions have a role to play in making it easier for citizens to engage in conversations with those they would otherwise avoid.
AddamsJ (1964) Democracy and Social Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
2.
AikinSFTalisseRB (2018) Why We Argue (and How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason. New York: Routledge.
3.
AndersonE (2010) The Imperative of Integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Bacelar da SilvaAJRobb LarkinsE (2019) The Bolsonaro election, antiblackness, and changing race relations in Brazil. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology24: 893–913.
5.
BadanoGNutiA (2024) Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BeaverDStanleyJ (2023) The Politics of Language. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
BilewiczMSoralW (2020) Hate speech epidemic: The dynamic effects of derogatory language on intergroup relations and political radicalization. Political Psychology41: 1–31.
10.
BillinghamP (2019) State speech as a response to hate speech: Assessing transformative liberalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice22: 639–655.
11.
BitzerLF (1968) The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric1: 1–14.
12.
BlasiVA (1988) The first amendment and the ideal of civic courage: The Brandeis opinion in Whitney v. California. Wm. & Mary L. Rev29: 653–697.
13.
BollingerLC (1986) The Tolerant Society: Free Speech and Extremist Speech in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
BowmanKGelberK (2021) Responding to hate speech: Counter speech and the university. Virginia Journal of Social Philosophy and the Law28: 248–275.
15.
BrandomR (2000) Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Braver Angels (2024) What *Must* You Say and Do as a Debate Chair?New York: Braver Angels.
17.
BrettschneiderC (2012) When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies can Protect Expression and Promote Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
BrettschneiderC (2024) The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It. New York: Norton.
19.
BrownA (2015) Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination. London: Routledge.
20.
BrownleeK (2015) Freedom of association: It’s not what you think. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies35: 267–282.
21.
CapocciaG (2005) Defending Democracy: Reactions to Extremism in Interwar Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
CaponettoLCepollaroB (2023) Bending as counterspeech. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice26: 577–593.
23.
Casal BértoaFRamaJ (2021) Polarization: What do we know and what can we do about it?Frontiers in Political Science3: 1–11.
DovidioJKawakamiKGaertnerSL (2000) Reducing contemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and implicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In: OskampS (ed.) The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology ‘Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 137–163.
31.
FumagalliC (2021) Counterspeech and ordinary citizens: How? When?Political Theory49: 1021–1047.
32.
FumagalliC (2023) The place of voting in the ethics of counterspeech. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice26: 595–609.
33.
GelberK (2002) Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
34.
GelberK (2012) Reconceptualizing counterspeech in hate-speech policy (with a focus on Australia). In: HerzMMolnarP (eds) The Content and Context of Hate Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198–216.
35.
GelberK (2021) Speaking Back”. In: StoneASchauerF (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 249–265.
36.
GelberKMcNamaraL (2016) Evidencing the harms of hate speech. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture22: 324–341.
37.
GianiMMéonPG (2021) Global racist contagion following donald trump’s election. British Journal of Political Science31: 1332–1339.
38.
GlaeserESunsteinCR (2014) Does more speech correct faleshoods?The Journal of Legal Studies43: 65–93.
39.
GoldbergS (2020) Conversational Pressure: Normativity in Speech Exchange. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
GriffinR (2022) New school speech regulation as a regulatory strategy against hate speech on social media: The case of Germany’s NetzD. Telecommunications Policy46: 1–22.
41.
GrilloELuoZNalepaM, et al. (2024) Theories of democratic backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science27: 381–400.
42.
HansGS (2021) Changing counterspeech. Cleveland State Law Review69: 749–783.
43.
HelblingMReeskensTWrightM (2016) The mobilization of identities: A study on the relationship between elite rhetoric and public opinion on national identity in developed democracies. Nations and Nationalism22: 744–767.
44.
HowardJ (2019) Free speech and hate speech. Annual Review of Political Science22: 93–109.
45.
HowardJ (2021) Terror, hate and the demands of counter-speech. British Journal of Political Science51(3): 924–939.
46.
IngberS (1984) The marketplace of ideas: A legitimizing myth. Duke Law Journal1: 1–91.
47.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76: 405–431.
48.
JostJTBaldassariDSDruckmanJN (2022) Cognitive-motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology1: 560–576.
49.
KapelnerZ (2024) Anti-immigrant backlash: The democratic dilemma for immigration policy. Comparative Migration Studies12: 1–18.
50.
KirshnerA (2014) A Theory of Militant Democracy: The Ethics of Combating Extremism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
KurtulmusF (2025) Learning from the enemies of freedom: Freedom of expression and collective power. British Journal of Political Science55: 1–16.
52.
LackeyJ (2020) The duty to object. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research101: 35–60.
53.
LaiTH (2020) Political vandalism as counter-speech: A defense of defacing and destroying tainted monuments. European Journal of Philosophy28: 602–616.
54.
LangtonR (2018) Blocking as counter-speech. In: FogalDHarrisDWMossM (eds) New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 144–164.
55.
LepoutreM (2021) Democratic Speech in Divided Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56.
LevitskySZiblattD (2018) How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.
57.
MalkopoulouANormanL (2018) Three models of democratic self-defence: Militant democracy and its alternatives. Political Studies66: 442–458.
58.
MendelbergT (2001) The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
59.
MolnarP (2012) Responding to ‘hate speech’ with art, education, and the imminent danger test. In: HerzMMolnarP (eds) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. New York: Cambridge University Press, 183–197.
60.
More in Common (2025) The Connection Opportunity. New York: More in Common.
61.
MuellerJW (2024) The case for banning anti-democratic candidates. Project Syndicate.
62.
MurphyM (2025) Shaming, condemning, and calling for consequences: Contemporary anti-dialogic responses to harmful speakers in public discourse. Representation61: 327–344.
63.
NewmanBMerollaJLShahS, et al. (2021) The trump effect: An experimental investigation of the emboldening effect of racially inflammatory elite communication. British Journal of Political Science51: 1138–1159.
64.
PiersonPSchickerE (2019) Madison’s constitution under stress: A developmental analysis of political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science23: 37–58.
65.
Santi AmantiniL (2022) Populist anti-immigrant sentiments taken seriously: A realistic approach. Res Publica (Liverpool, England)28: 103–123.
66.
SaulJ (2024) Dogwhistles and Figleaves: How Manipulative Lanaguage Spreads Racism and Falsehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67.
SchachterO (1983) Human dignity as a normative concept. American Journal of International Law77: 848–854.
68.
SchupmannBA (2024) Democracy despite Itself: Liberal Constitutionalism and Militant Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69.
Search for Common Ground (2024) Insider Mediation: Lesson Learnt and Best Practices for Conflict Resolution and Prevention. Washington: Search for Common Ground.
70.
StrossenN (2018) HATE. Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship. New York: Oxford University Press.
71.
TáíwòOO (2025) How can we live together?Boston Review.
72.
TalisseRB (2019) Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
73.
TalisseRB (2021) Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe to the Other Side. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
74.
TirrellL (2012) Genocidal language games. In: MaitraIMcGowanMK (eds) Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. New York: Oxford University Press, 174–221.
75.
UdupaS (2021) Digital Technology and Extreme Speech: Approaches to Counter Online Hate. New York: United Nations Peacekeeping.
