Abstract
This paper presents an interpretation of the Kantian concepts of public and private use of reason in relation to the topic of the legitimacy of freedom of the press. In this case, I intend not only an interpretation of the Kantian texts but also an update of Kantian philosophy in a sense that tries to recontextualize some arguments and concepts for thinking about the modern question of freedom of the press in democratic societies.
Highlights
The purpose of this section is to present some thoughts on which could mean to employ the distinction between public use and private use of reason into the realm of media, i.e., in the conduct of journalists and press
The press in order to be truly free and to fulfill its social function for enlightenment should be considered according to the criteria of a republican freedom
I have defended the idea that from the Kantian categories of public and private use of reason it is possible to legitimize some state or civil regulation of journalistic activity without violating the right to freedom of the press. This is possible since journalistic activity is thought of as an activity that encompasses both a private use and a public use of reason
Summary
Kant was one of the most arduous defenders of freedom of speech and think, or of the so-called “freedom of the pen”:. Use tacitly supposes that, in a certain context, there is a community of equals in which dialogue is established through common principles This is realized primarily because Kant emphasizes that only can make a public use of reason that individual who behaves as a scholar in the subject matter and, that this attitude can only occur before the general public of the world of readers. In order to the public use of reason be truly free it can not suffer any external constraint, i.e., it should be regulated only by principles that are internal accepted to the community This means, on the one hand, that the government or the State should not exercise any force on the public use of reason: The freedom to think is opposed first of all to civil compulsion. It can be said that the very possibility of positive law, from the perspective of law enforcement, depends on the possibility of a distinction between public and private use of reason and the restraint and regulation of the latter.[8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
