The Harm In Hate Speech

The Harm in Hate Speech: Understanding the Devastating Ripple Effect

Hate speech. The phrase itself feels abrasive, a verbal assault even before we unpack its meaning. But beyond the immediate discomfort, hate speech inflicts profound and lasting harm on individuals, communities, and society as a whole. This post delves into the insidious consequences of hate speech, exploring its impact on mental health, social cohesion, and even the potential for real-world violence. We'll dissect the mechanisms through which hate speech operates and examine strategies for combating its insidious spread.

The Psychological Toll of Hate Speech: More Than Just Hurt Feelings

The most immediate and perhaps most underestimated consequence of hate speech is its devastating impact on mental health. Being targeted by hate speech – whether online or offline – can trigger intense feelings of anxiety, depression, isolation, and even PTSD. The constant barrage of negativity, often amplified by online echo chambers, can erode self-esteem, leading to feelings of worthlessness and powerlessness. This is especially true for marginalized groups who are already facing systemic discrimination and prejudice. The cumulative effect of constant exposure can be debilitating, impacting mental wellbeing for months, even years.

The Power of Microaggressions: Subtle but Significant

It's crucial to understand that hate speech doesn't always come in the form of blatant slurs or violent threats. Microaggressions – subtle, often unintentional acts of discrimination – can be equally damaging over time. These seemingly minor slights accumulate, creating a climate of hostility and undermining the sense of belonging and safety within a community. The cumulative effect of these microaggressions can be as harmful, if not more so, than overt acts of hate speech.

The Social Impact: Eroding Trust and Community

Hate speech doesn't exist in a vacuum. It erodes the very fabric of our social structures, fracturing communities and creating an environment of fear and distrust. When individuals feel unsafe to express their identities or beliefs, the open exchange of ideas – essential for a healthy democracy – is stifled. This fosters polarization and division, making it harder to find common ground and address shared challenges.

The Rise of Online Hate: Amplification and Spread

The internet, while offering incredible opportunities for connection, has also become a breeding ground for hate speech. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement often prioritize inflammatory content, creating echo chambers where extremist views are amplified and reinforced. This rapid dissemination of hate speech can quickly escalate tensions and incite violence, both online and offline.

The Link Between Hate Speech and Real-World Violence: A Dangerous Correlation

The relationship between hate speech and real-world violence is undeniable. While hate speech doesn't always directly lead to violence, it creates a climate that normalizes prejudice and dehumanizes targeted groups. This can embolden individuals to act on their hateful impulses, leading to physical assaults, property damage, and even mass violence. Numerous studies have demonstrated a clear correlation between the prevalence of hate speech and an increase in hate crimes.

Combating the Harm: Strategies for Prevention and Intervention

Addressing the harm of hate speech requires a multi-pronged approach. This includes:

Education and Awareness: Promoting critical thinking skills and media literacy is crucial in helping individuals identify and challenge hate speech.
Legislation and Regulation: Laws and regulations can play a role in holding perpetrators accountable, though the line between free speech and hate speech can be complex and requires careful consideration.
Platform Accountability: Social media platforms bear a significant responsibility in moderating content and removing hate speech from their platforms. More effective and consistent enforcement is crucial.
Community Building: Fostering inclusive and supportive communities provides a crucial counterbalance to the isolation and alienation that hate speech creates.

Conclusion

The harm caused by hate speech is far-reaching and deeply damaging. It affects not just individuals but entire communities, undermining social cohesion and potentially fueling real-world violence. By understanding the mechanisms through which hate speech operates and implementing effective strategies for prevention and intervention, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable society for all.

FAQs

1. Is all criticism considered hate speech? No, criticism is different from hate speech. Criticism focuses on ideas or actions, while hate speech targets individuals or groups based on their identity.

2. How can I report hate speech online? Most social media platforms have reporting mechanisms. Look for a button or flag usually located near the offending content.

3. What legal protections are there against hate speech? Laws vary by jurisdiction, but many countries have laws prohibiting hate speech that incites violence or discrimination.

4. What role do bystanders play in combating hate speech? Bystanders can challenge hate speech by speaking up, reporting it, or offering support to those targeted.

5. Can exposure to hate speech affect someone indirectly? Yes, even witnessing hate speech directed at others can cause emotional distress and contribute to a climate of fear and intolerance.

the harm in hate speech: The Harm in Hate Speech Jeremy Waldron, 2012-06-08 Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech—except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense—by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example—is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group’s dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
the harm in hate speech: The Harm in Hate Speech Jeremy Waldron, 2012-06-04 Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech, except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, the author argues that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense, by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example, is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group's dignity, according to the author, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. The author finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, he asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
the harm in hate speech: The Harm in Hate Speech Jeremy Waldron, 2014-10-06 Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech—except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense—by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example—is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group’s dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
the harm in hate speech: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate Anthony Lewis, 2010 More than any other people on earth, we Americans are free to say and write what we think. The press can air the secrets of government, the corporate boardroom, or the bedroom with little fear of punishment or penalty. This extraordinary freedom results not from America’s culture of tolerance, but from fourteen words in the constitution: the free expression clauses of the First Amendment.InFreedom for the Thought That We Hate, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Anthony Lewis describes how our free-speech rights were created in five distinct areas—political speech, artistic expression, libel, commercial speech, and unusual forms of expression such as T-shirts and campaign spending. It is a story of hard choices, heroic judges, and the fascinating and eccentric defendants who forced the legal system to come face to face with one of America’s great founding ideas.
the harm in hate speech: The Content and Context of Hate Speech Michael Herz, Peter Molnar, 2012-04-09 The contributors to this volume consider whether it is possible to establish carefully tailored hate speech policies that are cognizant of the varying traditions, histories and values of different countries. Throughout, there is a strong comparative emphasis, with examples (and authors) drawn from around the world. All the authors explore whether or when different cultural and historical settings justify different substantive rules given that such cultural relativism can be used to justify content-based restrictions and so endanger freedom of expression. Essays address the following questions, among others: is hate speech in fact so dangerous or harmful to vulnerable minorities or communities as to justify a lower standard of constitutional protection? What harms and benefits accrue from laws that criminalize hate speech in particular contexts? Are there circumstances in which everyone would agree that hate speech should be criminally punished? What lessons can be learned from international case law?
the harm in hate speech: HATE Nadine Strossen, 2018-04-02 The updated paperback edition of HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about hate speech vs. free speech, showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. As hate speech has no generally accepted definition, we hear many incorrect assumptions that it is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. Hate speech censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that hate speech are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates worldwide maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous counterspeech and activism.
the harm in hate speech: Hate Speech Law Alex Brown, 2015-03-05 Hate speech law can be found throughout the world. But it is also the subject of numerous principled arguments, both for and against. These principles invoke a host of morally relevant features (e.g., liberty, health, autonomy, security, non-subordination, the absence of oppression, human dignity, the discovery of truth, the acquisition of knowledge, self-realization, human excellence, civic dignity, cultural diversity and choice, recognition of cultural identity, intercultural dialogue, participation in democratic self-government, being subject only to legitimate rule) and practical considerations (e.g., efficacy, the least restrictive alternative, chilling effects). The book develops and then critically examines these various principled arguments. It also attempts to de-homogenize hate speech law into different clusters of laws/regulations/codes that constrain uses of hate speech, so as to facilitate a more nuanced examination of the principled arguments. Finally, it argues that it is morally fitting for judicial and legislative judgments about the overall warrant of hate speech law to reflect principled compromise. Principled compromise is characterized not merely by compromise over matters of principled concern but also by compromise which is itself governed by ideals of moral duty or civic virtue (e.g., reciprocity, equality, and mutual respect). The Open Access version of this book, available at https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714899, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
the harm in hate speech: Speech and Harm Ishani Maitra, Mary Kathryn McGowan, 2012-05-31 Most liberal societies are deeply committed to free speech, but there is evidence that some kinds of speech can be harmful in ways that are detrimental to important liberal values, such as social inequality. This volume draws on a range of approaches in order to explore the problem and determine what ought to be done about allegedly harmful speech.
the harm in hate speech: Countering online hate speech Gagliardone, Iginio, Gal, Danit, Alves, Thiago, Martinez, Gabriela, 2015-06-17 The opportunities afforded by the Internet greatly overshadow the challenges. While not forgetting this, we can nevertheless still address some of the problems that arise. Hate speech online is one such problem. But what exactly is hate speech online, and how can we deal with it effectively? As with freedom of expression, on- or offline, UNESCO defends the position that the free flow of information should always be the norm. Counter-speech is generally preferable to suppression of speech. And any response that limits speech needs to be very carefully weighed to ensure that this remains wholly exceptional, and that legitimate robust debate is not curtailed.
the harm in hate speech: Putting Faith in Hate Richard Moon, 2018-02-15 To allow or restrict hate speech is a hotly debated issue in many societies. While the right to freedom of speech is fundamental to liberal democracies, most countries have accepted that hate speech causes significant harm and ought to be regulated. Richard Moon examines the application of hate speech laws when religion is either the source or target of such speech. Moon describes the various legal restrictions on hate speech, religious insult, and blasphemy in Canada, Europe and elsewhere, and uses cases from different jurisdictions to illustrate the particular challenges raised by religious hate speech. The issues addressed are highly topical: speech that attacks religious communities, specifically anti-Muslim rhetoric, and hateful speech that is based on religious doctrine or scripture, such as anti-gay speech. The book draws on a rich understanding of freedom of expression, the harms of hate speech, and the role of religion in public life.
the harm in hate speech: The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech Adrienne Stone, Frederick Schauer, 2021-01-14 The Oxford Handbook on Freedom of Speech provides a critical analysis of the foundations, rationales, and ideas that underpin freedom of speech as a political idea, and as a principle of positive constitutional law.
the harm in hate speech: Speaking Back Katharine Gelber, 2002 What is hate speech? How does a person suffer when they are vilified? What can public policy do to redress it? This text proposes a new type of hate speech policy - speaking back - providing institutional, material and educational support to enable the victims of hate speech to respond.
the harm in hate speech: Destructive Messages Alexander Tsesis, 2002-08-19 Tsesis uses historical examples to illuminate the central role racist speech played in encouraging attitudes that led to human rights violations against German Jews, Native Americans, and African Americans, and also discusses the dangers posed by hate speech spread on the Internet today. He also offers an examination of the psychology of scapegoating.--BOOK JACKET.
the harm in hate speech: Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship Eric Heinze, 2016-02-05 Most modern democracies punish hate speech. Less freedom for some, they claim, guarantees greater freedom for others. Heinze rejects that approach, arguing that democracies have better ways of combatting violence and discrimination against vulnerable groups without having to censor speakers. Critiquing dominant free speech theories, Heinze explains that free expression must be safeguarded not just as an individual right, but as an essential attribute of democratic citizenship. The book challenges contemporary state regulation of public discourse by promoting a stronger theory of what democracy is and what it demands. Examining US, European, and international approaches, Heinze offers a new vision of free speech within Western democracies.
the harm in hate speech: Contested Words Ian Cram, 2016-05-13 In modern liberal democracies, rights-based judicial intervention in the policy choices of elected bodies has always been controversial. For some, such judicial intervention has trivialized and impoverished democratic politics. For others judges have contributed to a dynamic and healthy dialogue between the different spheres of the constitution, removed from pressures imposed on elected representatives to respond to popular sentiment. This book provides a critical evaluation of ongoing debates surrounding the judicial role in protecting fundamental human rights, focusing in particular on legislative/executive abridgment of a core freedom in western society - namely, liberty of expression. A range of types of expression are considered, including expression related to electoral processes, political expression in general and sexually explicit forms of expression.
the harm in hate speech: Free Speech Timothy Garton Ash, 2016-05-24 WINNER OF THE 2017 AL-RODHAN PRIZE Never in human history was there such a chance for freedom of expression. If we have Internet access, any one of us can publish almost anything we like and potentially reach an audience of millions. Never was there a time when the evils of unlimited speech flowed so easily across frontiers: violent intimidation, gross violations of privacy, tidal waves of abuse. A pastor burns a Koran in Florida and UN officials die in Afghanistan. Drawing on a lifetime of writing about dictatorships and dissidents, Timothy Garton Ash argues that in this connected world that he calls cosmopolis, the way to combine freedom and diversity is to have more but also better free speech. Across all cultural divides we must strive to agree on how we disagree. He draws on a thirteen-language global online project - freespeechdebate.com - conducted out of Oxford University and devoted to doing just that. With vivid examples, from his personal experience of China's Orwellian censorship apparatus to the controversy around Charlie Hebdo to a very English court case involving food writer Nigella Lawson, he proposes a framework for civilized conflict in a world where we are all becoming neighbours. Particularly timely. . . Garton Ash argues forcefully that. . . there is an increasing need for freer speech. . . A powerful, comprehensive book - The Economist
the harm in hate speech: Regulating Free Speech in a Digital Age David Bromell, 2022-02-11 Hateful thoughts and words can lead to harmful actions like the March 2019 terrorist attack on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. In free, open and democratic societies, governments cannot justifiably regulate what citizens think, feel, believe or value, but do have a duty to protect citizens from harmful communication that incites discrimination, active hostility and violence. Written by a public policy advisor for fellow practitioners in politics and public life, this book discusses significant practical and moral challenges regarding internet governance and freedom of speech, particularly when responding to content that is legal but harmful. Policy makers and professionals working for governmental institutions need to strike a fair balance between protecting from harm and preserving the right to freedom of expression. And because merely passing laws does not solve complex social problems, governments need to invest, not just regulate. Governments, big tech and the private sector, civil society, individual citizens and the fourth estate all have roles to play, and counter-speech is everyone’s responsibility. This book tackles hard questions about internet governance, hate speech, cancel culture and the loss of civility, and illustrates principled pragmatism applied to perplexing policy problems. Furthermore, it presents counter-speech strategies as alternatives and complements to censorship and criminalisation.
the harm in hate speech: Hate Speech Caitlin Ring Carlson, 2021-04-06 An investigation of hate speech: legal approaches, current controversies, and suggestions for limiting its spread. Hate speech can happen anywhere--in Charlottesville, Virginia, where young men in khakis shouted, Jews will not replace us; in Myanmar, where the military used Facebook to target the Muslim Rohingya; in Capetown, South Africa, where a pastor called on ISIS to rid South Africa of the homosexual curse. In person or online, people wield language to attack others for their race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, or other aspects of identity. This volume in the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series examines hate speech: what it is, and is not; its history; and efforts to address it.
the harm in hate speech: A Republican Theory of Free Speech Suzanne Whitten, 2021-10-22 This book offers the first comprehensive philosophical examination of the free speech ‘battles’ of the last decade, arguing for a critical republican conception of civility as an explanatory and prescriptive solution. Issues such as no-platforming and safe spaces, the increasing influence of Far-Right rhetoric on internet forums, the role of Twitter as a site of activist struggles, and the moral panics that surround ill-judged comments made by public figures, all provide a new set of challenges for society which demand a careful critical analysis. The author proposes a 'republican theory' of free speech, demonstrating how a conception of ‘critical’ civility, one which combines the importance of expressive respect with the responsibilities of contestation and vigilance, is required if we are to combat some of the most contentious speech-related conflicts facing contemporary society today.
the harm in hate speech: The Inherent Danger of Hate Speech Legislation Andrea Scheffler, 2015
the harm in hate speech: Just Words Mary Kate McGowan, 2019-01-31 We all know that speech can be harmful. But what are the harms and how exactly does the speech in question brings those harms about? Mary Kate McGowan identifies a previously overlooked mechanism by which speech constitutes, rather than merely causes, harm. She argues that speech constitutes harm when it enacts a norm that prescribes that harm. McGowan illustrates this theory by considering many categories of speech including sexist remarks, racist hate speech, pornography, verbal triggers for stereotype threat, micro-aggressions, political dog whistles, slam poetry, and even the hanging of posters. Just Words explores a variety of harms - such as oppression, subordination, discrimination, domination, harassment, and marginalization - and ways in which these harms can be remedied.
the harm in hate speech: Free Speech on Campus Erwin Chemerinsky, Howard Gillman, 2017-09-12 Can free speech coexist with an inclusive campus environment? Hardly a week goes by without another controversy over free speech on college campuses. On one side, there are increased demands to censor hateful, disrespectful, and bullying expression and to ensure an inclusive and nondiscriminatory learning environment. On the other side are traditional free speech advocates who charge that recent demands for censorship coddle students and threaten free inquiry. In this clear and carefully reasoned book, a university chancellor and a law school dean—both constitutional scholars who teach a course in free speech to undergraduates—argue that campuses must provide supportive learning environments for an increasingly diverse student body but can never restrict the expression of ideas. This book provides the background necessary to understanding the importance of free speech on campus and offers clear prescriptions for what colleges can and can’t do when dealing with free speech controversies.
the harm in hate speech: Disability Hate Speech Mark Sherry, Terje Olsen, Janikke Solstad Vedeler, John Eriksen, 2019-11-08 This book, the first to specifically focus on disability hate speech, explains what disability hate speech is, why it is important, what laws regulate it (both online and in person) and how it is different from other forms of hate. Unfortunately, disability is often ignored or overlooked in academic, legal, political, and cultural analyses of the broader problem of hate speech. Its unique personal, ideological, economic, political and legal dimensions have not been recognized – until now. Disability hate speech is an everyday experience for many people, leaving terrible psycho-emotional scars. This book includes personal testimonies from victims discussing the personal impact of disability hate speech, explaining in detail how such hatred affects them. It also presents legal, historical, psychological, and cultural analyses, including the results of the first surveys and in-depth interviews ever conducted on this topic in some countries. This book makes a vital contribution to understanding disability hatred and prejudice, and will be of particular interest to those studying issues associated with hate speech, disability, psychology, law, and prejudice.
the harm in hate speech: Social Media and Democracy Nathaniel Persily, Joshua A. Tucker, Joshua Aaron Tucker, 2020-09-03 A state-of-the-art account of what we know and do not know about the effects of digital technology on democracy.
the harm in hate speech: Striking a Balance Sandra Coliver, 1992
the harm in hate speech: Drive Daniel H. Pink, 2010-01-21 Forget everything you thought you knew about how to motivate people - at work, at school, at home. It's wrong. As Daniel H. Pink explains in his new and paradigm-shattering book DRIVE: THE SURPRISING TRUTH ABOUT WHAT MOTIVATES US, the secret to high performance and satisfaction in today's world is the deeply human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things, and to do better by ourselves and our world. Drawing on four decades of scientific research on human motivation, Pink exposes the mismatch between what science knows and what business does - and how that affects every aspect of our lives. He demonstrates that while the old-fashioned carrot-and-stick approach worked successfully in the 20th century, it's precisely the wrong way to motivate people for today's challenges. In DRIVE, he reveals the three elements of true motivation: AUTONOMY - the desire to direct our own lives; MASTERY - the urge to get better and better at something that matters; PURPOSE - the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. Along the way, he takes us to companies that are enlisting new approaches to motivation and introduces us to the scientists and entrepreneurs who are pointing a bold way forward. DRIVE is bursting with big ideas - the rare book that will change how you think and transform how you live.
the harm in hate speech: Words That Wound Mari J Matsuda, 2018-03-08 In this book, the authors, all legal scholars from the tradition of critical race theory start from the experience of injury from racist hate speech and develop a theory of the first amendment that recognizes such injuries. In their critique of first amendment orthodoxy, the authors argue that only a history of racism can explain why defamation, invasion of privacy and fraud are exempt from free-speech guarantees but racist verbal assault is not.
the harm in hate speech: Speech, Media and Ethics R. Cohen-Almagor, 2001-04-18 Speech, Media, and Ethics: The Limits of Free Expression is an interdisciplinary work that employs ethics, liberal philosophy, and legal and media studies to outline the boundaries to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, defined broadly to include the right to demonstrate and to picket, the right to compete in elections, and the right to communicate views via the written and electronic media. Moral principles are applied to analyze practical questions that deal with free expression and its limits.
the harm in hate speech: Confronting the Internet's Dark Side Raphael Cohen-Almagor, 2015-06-30 This book outlines social and moral guidelines to combat violent, hateful, and illegal activity on the Internet.
the harm in hate speech: The Fight for Free Speech Ian Rosenberg, 2023-05-16 A user’s guide to understanding contemporary free speech issues in the United States Americans today are confronted by a barrage of questions relating to their free speech freedoms. What are libel laws, and do they need to be changed to stop the press from lying? Does Colin Kaepernick have the right to take a knee? Can Saturday Night Live be punished for parody? While citizens are grappling with these questions, they generally have nowhere to turn to learn about the extent of their First Amendment rights. The Fight for Free Speech answers this call with an accessible, engaging user’s guide to free speech. Media lawyer Ian Rosenberg distills the spectrum of free speech law down to ten critical issues. Each chapter in this book focuses on a contemporary free speech question—from student walkouts for gun safety to Samantha Bee’s expletives, from Nazis marching in Charlottesville to the muting of adult film star Stormy Daniels— and then identifies, unpacks, and explains the key Supreme Court case that provides the answers. Together these fascinating stories create a practical framework for understanding where our free speech protections originated and how they can develop in the future. As people on all sides of the political spectrum are demanding their right to speak and be heard, The Fight for Free Speech is a handbook for combating authoritarianism, protecting our democracy, and bringing an understanding of free speech law to all.
the harm in hate speech: Online Hate Speech in the European Union Stavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne H. Baider, Sharon Millar, 2017-12-20 This book is open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and reports on research carried out as part of the European Union co-funded C.O.N.T.A.C.T. project which targeted hate speech and hate crime across a number of EU member states. It showcases the bearing that discourse analytic research can have on our understanding of this phenomenon that is a growing global cause for concern. Although ‘hate speech’ is often incorporated in legal and policy documents, there is no universally accepted definition, which in itself warrants research into how hatred is both expressed and perceived. The research project synthesises discourse analytic and corpus linguistics techniques, and presents its key findings here. The focus is especially on online comments posted in reaction to news items that could trigger discrimination, as well as on the folk perception of online hate speech as revealed through semi-structured interviews with young individuals across the various partner countries.
the harm in hate speech: The Origins of Democratic Thinking Cynthia Farrar, 1988 Dr Farrar argues that the development of political theory accompanied the growth of democracy at Athens in the fifth century BC. By analysing the writings of Protagoras, Thucydides and Democritus in the context of political developments and speculation about the universe, she reveals the existence of a distinctive approach to the characterisation of democratic order, and in doing so demonstrates the virtues of Thucydides' historical conception of politics.
the harm in hate speech: The Hateful and the Obscene L. W. Sumner, 2004-01-01 In a series of landmark decisions since 1990, Canadian courts have shaped a distinctive approach to the regulation of obscenity, hate literature, and child pornography. Missing from the debate, however, has been any attempt to determine whether the legal status quo can be justified by reference to a framework of moral/political principles. The Hateful and the Obscene is intended to fill that gap. The Hateful and the Obscene is an interpretation of freedom of expression that combines serious philosophical thought with a focus on Canadian law, thus offering the breadth capable of dealing with both obscenity and hate literature
the harm in hate speech: The Periodic Table Eric R. Scerri, 2019 Eric R. Scerri presents a modern and fresh exploration of this fundamental topic in the physical sciences, considering the deeper implications of the arrangements of the table to atomic physics and quantum mechanics. This new edition celebrates the completion of the 7th period of the table, with the naming of elements 113, 115, 117, and 118
the harm in hate speech: Letter from Birmingham Jail Martin Luther King, 2025-01-14 A beautiful commemorative edition of Dr. Martin Luther King's essay Letter from Birmingham Jail, part of Dr. King's archives published exclusively by HarperCollins. With an afterword by Reginald Dwayne Betts On April 16, 1923, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., responded to an open letter written and published by eight white clergyman admonishing the civil rights demonstrations happening in Birmingham, Alabama. Dr. King drafted his seminal response on scraps of paper smuggled into jail. King criticizes his detractors for caring more about order than justice, defends nonviolent protests, and argues for the moral responsibility to obey just laws while disobeying unjust ones. Letter from Birmingham Jail proclaims a message - confronting any injustice is an acceptable and righteous reason for civil disobedience. This beautifully designed edition presents Dr. King's speech in its entirety, paying tribute to this extraordinary leader and his immeasurable contribution, and inspiring a new generation of activists dedicated to carrying on the fight for justice and equality.
the harm in hate speech: Sexual Solipsism Rae Langton, 2009-01-08 Rae Langton here draws together her ground-breaking and contentious work on pornography and objectification. She shows how women come to be objectified and she argues for the controversial feminist conclusions that pornography subordinates and silences women, and women have rights against pornography.
the harm in hate speech: The Cruelty Is the Point Adam Serwer, 2021-06-29 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • From an award-winning journalist at The Atlantic, these searing essays make a powerful case that “real hope lies not in a sunny nostalgia for American greatness but in seeing this history plain—in all of its brutality, unadorned by euphemism” (The New York Times). NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR BY NPR • “No writer better demonstrates how American dreams are so often sabotaged by American history. Adam Serwer is essential.”—Ta-Nehisi Coates To many, our most shocking political crises appear unprecedented—un-American, even. But they are not, writes The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer in this prescient essay collection, which dissects the most devastating moments in recent memory to reveal deeply entrenched dynamics, patterns as old as the country itself. The January 6 insurrection, anti-immigrant sentiment, and American authoritarianism all have historic roots that explain their continued power with or without President Donald Trump—a fact borne out by what has happened since his departure from the White House. Serwer argues that Trump is not the cause, he is a symptom. Serwer’s phrase “the cruelty is the point” became among the most-used descriptions of Trump’s era, but as this book demonstrates, it resonates across centuries. The essays here combine revelatory reporting, searing analysis, and a clarity that’s bracing. In this new, expanded version of his bestselling debut, Serwer elegantly dissects white supremacy’s profound influence on our political system, looking at the persistence of the Lost Cause, the past and present of police unions, the mythology of migration, and the many faces of anti-Semitism. In so doing, he offers abundant proof that our past is present and demonstrates the devastating costs of continuing to pretend it’s not. The Cruelty Is the Point dares us, the reader, to not look away.
the harm in hate speech: Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on Law and Justice, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization: Lessons for Bullying Prevention, 2016-09-14 Bullying has long been tolerated as a rite of passage among children and adolescents. There is an implication that individuals who are bullied must have asked for this type of treatment, or deserved it. Sometimes, even the child who is bullied begins to internalize this idea. For many years, there has been a general acceptance and collective shrug when it comes to a child or adolescent with greater social capital or power pushing around a child perceived as subordinate. But bullying is not developmentally appropriate; it should not be considered a normal part of the typical social grouping that occurs throughout a child's life. Although bullying behavior endures through generations, the milieu is changing. Historically, bulling has occurred at school, the physical setting in which most of childhood is centered and the primary source for peer group formation. In recent years, however, the physical setting is not the only place bullying is occurring. Technology allows for an entirely new type of digital electronic aggression, cyberbullying, which takes place through chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication. Composition of peer groups, shifting demographics, changing societal norms, and modern technology are contextual factors that must be considered to understand and effectively react to bullying in the United States. Youth are embedded in multiple contexts and each of these contexts interacts with individual characteristics of youth in ways that either exacerbate or attenuate the association between these individual characteristics and bullying perpetration or victimization. Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, this report evaluates the state of the science on biological and psychosocial consequences of peer victimization and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease peer victimization behavior and consequences.
the harm in hate speech: Words on Fire Helio Fred Garcia, 2020-06-30 The consequences of incendiary rhetoric are predictable. This is what author Helio Fred Garcia argues and warns us about in Words on Fire. The El Paso terrorist attack finally brought to the forefront broader public recognition that leaders who dehumanize and demonize groups, rivals, or critics create conditions where citizens begin to accept, condone, and even commit acts of violence. Leaders of all kinds use language to move people, and this book is about how they do it. The Work focuses on Donald Trump’s use of language that dehumanizes others, and how his use of dehumanizing language can provoke “lone wolves” to commit acts of violence, a type of violent extremism known as stochastic terrorism. Garcia’s goal is to sound the alarm about this insidious spur to violence by spelling out the mechanisms by which it works so that leaders, citizens, journalists, and others can recognize it when it occurs and hold leaders accountable. The Work is a timely analysis of leadership communication applied to the current political and social climate that will find a long-term audience with engaged citizens, civic leaders, and in the business, military, academic, and religious communities with which the author has deep ties. Garcia provides responsible leaders not just with techniques to recognize when they are using language in ways that may lead to negative consequences, but with ways to stop, redirect their focus, and stay on the high ground. And he provides citizens, civic leaders, journalists, and others with a framework to recognize potentially violence-provoking rhetoric so they can hold leaders accountable for it with twelve warning signs that rhetoric may provoke violence.
the harm in hate speech: Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces John Palfrey, 2017-10-13 How the essential democratic values of diversity and free expression can coexist on campus. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, microaggressions, the disinvitation of speakers, demands to rename campus landmarks—debate over these issues began in lecture halls and on college quads but ended up on op-ed pages in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, on cable news, and on social media. Some of these critiques had merit, but others took a series of cheap shots at “crybullies” who needed to be coddled and protected from the real world. Few questioned the assumption that colleges must choose between free expression and diversity. In Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces, John Palfrey argues that the essential democratic values of diversity and free expression can, and should, coexist on campus. Palfrey, currently Head of School at Phillips Academy, Andover, and formerly Professor and Vice Dean at Harvard Law School, writes that free expression and diversity are more compatible than opposed. Free expression can serve everyone—even if it has at times been dominated by white, male, Christian, heterosexual, able-bodied citizens. Diversity is about self-expression, learning from one another, and working together across differences; it can encompass academic freedom without condoning hate speech. Palfrey proposes an innovative way to support both diversity and free expression on campus: creating safe spaces and brave spaces. In safe spaces, students can explore ideas and express themselves with without feeling marginalized. In brave spaces—classrooms, lecture halls, public forums—the search for knowledge is paramount, even if some discussions may make certain students uncomfortable. The strength of our democracy, says Palfrey, depends on a commitment to upholding both diversity and free expression, especially when it is hardest to do so.
Hate Speech--Definitions & Empirical Evidence - University of …
hate speech3 and on pornography4 argue that harm can occur whether the hate speech is expressed in vituperative terms or not, and whether epithets are used or not. According to this literature, the defining features of hate speech are not whether it is 1. James Weinstein, Hate Speech Bans, Democracy and Political Legitimacy, 32 CONST.

nadine strossen, Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free …
that counter-speech can provide an effective remedy to the harms of hate speech . 1 . Abrams v United States, 250 US 616 (1919). See e.g. Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2012) at 155–6 [Waldron, Harm in Hate Speech]; Vincent Blasi, ‘Holmes and the Marketplace of Ideas’ [2004] Sup Ct Rev 1.

Predicting the Importance of Freedom of Speech and the …
harm of hate speech was positively related to intellect and liberalism, and women perceived a greater harm of hate speech than did men. jasp_902 1..23 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people

Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice - Springer
Abstract In ‘The Harm in Hate Speech’ Waldron’s most interesting and ground-breaking contribution lies in a distinctive epistemological role he assigns to hate speech legislation: it is necessary for assurance of justice, and thus for justice itself. He regards public social

Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic …
Bq9KquNeUCUipiCidCN BqqıRQOLQHdBUCUi ivuImi-NI,UCUiEHnBULJKWVn Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review Sergio Andr´es Castano-Pulgarín˜ a, *, Natalia Su´arez-Betancur b, Luz Magnolia Tilano Vega c, Harvey Mauricio Herrera L´opez d a Psychology Department, Corporaci´on Universitaria Minuto de Dios-UNIMINUTO, Colombia

Hate Speech and Its Harm to China during the COVID-19 …
reflect it, etc. Then, it analyzes YouTube’s hate speech policy and finds suggestions. Finally, the author conducted indepth interviews with Chinese students studying in - Spain, also who are YouTube users, n order to analyze the relationship between hate i speech and face-to-face violence (hate crime). 1.3 Data Collections

The Social Benefits of Protecting Hate Speech and Exposing …
Opponents of protecting hate speech vary in what harms they attribute to hate speech, in how they deﬁne harm, and in how they balance the costs and beneﬁts of free speech. They also have divergent conceptions of what it means for hate speech to be unprotected. Most signiﬁcantly, there is a difference between considering hate

THE HARM IN HATE SPEECH. By Jeremy Waldron. Harvard …
The real, tangible harm of hate speech, says Waldron, is its “radical denigration of status and [its] undermining of [the] assurance [of decent treatment and respect]” (p. 108). And so the legislating against hate speech can also be understood in terms …

Words That Harm - Cambridge University Press & Assessment
Words That Harm: Defending the Dignity Approach to Hate Speech Regulation Chris Bousquet Department of Philosophy, Syracuse University, USA Abstract The dignity approach to racist hate speech regulat ion maintains that hate speech ought to be regu-lated because it impugns targets’ dignity and poses a threat to their equal treatment. This approach

Report - A Conceptual Analysis of the Overlaps and …
between hate speech and misinformation and disinformation can in some contexts be challenging. 2. Hate speech, misinformation and disinformation can have cumulative impacts. As noted frequently in this report, hate speech as well as misinformation and disinformation can have. very severe, immediate impacts.

Streaming Hate: Exploring the Harm of Anti-Banyamulenge …
information.2 In addition to mediating “an increasing array of social, political and econ- omic practices” and facilitating access to the “public sphere,”3 these technologies empower interested users to spread disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech.4 Digital platforms facilitate the formation of transboundary networks,5 connecting actors

Lecture Slide 13: Hate Speech and Silencing, cont'd; Offensive …
3. What is racist hate speech, as West explains it? If her argument succeeds, would it show that other kinds of hate speech might undermine free speech? If so, what kinds? 13. racist hate speech. 14. Racist hate speech expresses derogatory feelings about, or attitudes towards, people on the basis of their race in order 1) directly to inﬂict

Liberalism and Campus Hate Speech: A Philosophical …
Many of the proponents of campus hate-speech regulation defend their position by arguing that hate speech causes serious harm to those who are the targets of such speech. Among the most basic of these harms are psychological ones. Even when it involves no direct threat of violence, hate speech can cause abiding feelings of fear, anxiety,

Campus Hate Speech Codes - JSTOR
Part I of this Comment briefly frames the campus hate speech contro-versy and considers why hate speech at colleges and universities is particu-larly disturbing. Part II discusses the harm caused by hate speech and the urgent need for a remedy, arguing that the Supreme Court's invalidation of a hate crimes ordinance in R.A. V. v. City of St ...

Hate Speech on Campus: What Public Universities Can and
50 R. Welshon 1 3 invirtueofbeingahumanbeingandacitizen.6Boththusprovideadignitarian accountofweaponizedintolerance’sharm. 7So,theharmofweaponizedintolerance ...

Children?’ Hate Speech, Harm, and Childhood - philarchive.org
Children?’ Hate Speech, Harm, and Childhood Robert Mark Simpson Law and Philosophy 38/1 (2019): 79-108 Abstract. Some authors claim that hate speech plays a key role in perpetuating unjust so-cial hierarchy. One prima facie plausible hypothesis about how this occurs is that hate speech has a pernicious influence on the attitudes of children.

‘The Harm in Hate Speech,’ by Jeremy Waldron - NYTimes.com
THE HARM IN HATE SPEECH By Jeremy Waldron 292 pp. Harvard University Press. $26.95. June 22, 2012 You Can’t Say That By MICHAEL W. McCONNELL The United States is almost alone among Western liberal democracies in not punishing what is called hate speech — oral or written messages that “incite hatred” against a person or group on the basis of

Online Speech and the First Amendment: Ten Principles from …
harm. In 2012, the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that made it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals. The Court explained that “[t]he remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society.” United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 727-29 (2012 ...

Just Words? Hate Speech, Harm, and the Justifiability of …
Hate Speech, Harm, and the Justiﬁability of Legal Regulation Sarah Soriala and Sam Shpallb aMacquarie University; bUniversity of Sydney 1. Introduction ... should be regulated: the current US approach to hate speech is legally ‘insupportable’. In this introductory essay, we focus on clarifying some central features of McGo- ...

UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON …
Hate speech is a menace to democratic values, social stability and peace. As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal

What Is the Harm of Hate Speech? - ResearchGate
harm in hate speech is from the perspective of members of the targeted groups; hate speech injures their social standing, theirdignity (his emphasis on p 5) which they should be able to rely on if ...

The Individual Consequences of Hate Speech: A Comparison …
Keywords: Defamation, Hate Speech/Group Libel, Harm, Conse-quences, USA, Europe 1. Introduction The discussion about freedom of speech and whether there should be any boundaries on speech is an ongoing debate, which is very closely re-lated to the debate about democracy.1 Prominent voices are opposing the

Draft ‘Effective Guidelines on Hate Speech, Social Media and …
despite the harm it may cause. Often there is an interference or limiting of expression, which has to ... Hate speech targeting minorities should be a distinct category and include national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. Commentary SMC content policies13 on hate speech should be legally certain imbuing foreseeability and ...

Survey on the impact of online disinformation and hate …
They overwhelmingly believe that hate speech is most prevalent on Facebook (58%), followed by TikTok (30%), X (18%), and Instagram (15%). According to citizens, it is primarily LGBT+ people (33%) and ethnic or racial minorities who are victims of online hate speech in their country, although there are significant variations between countries.

PROTOCOL: Online interventions for reducing hate speech …
In contrast, hate speech/cyberhate is more general and does not necessarily target a specific individual (Al‐Hassan & Al‐Dossari, 2019), instead hate speech/ cyberhate heavily features prejudice, bias and intolerance toward cer-tain groups within society. With the majority of hate speech happening

I. Hate speech
Furthermore, such free speech might lead to physical harm. Hate speech might lead to hate crimes. Benjamin Smith and Richard Baumhammers are two Aryan supremacists who in 1999 and 2000 respectively went on racially motivated shooting sprees after being exposed to

Is the ‘hate’ in hate speech the ‘hate’ in hate crime? Waldron …
5Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard University Press 2012) 174. 6RonaldDworkin, ‘Preface’ inIvanHareand JamesWeinstein(eds),ExtremeSpeech andDemocracy(OxfordUniversityPress

Hate Speech in Public Discourse - JSTOR
590-617, 591 ; and Eric Heinze, Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 26-30, 69-81. Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, 37. Many authors also bracket such face-to-face assaultive forms of hate speech, or treat them separately. See, for instance, Heinze, "Hate Speech and the Normative Foundations of

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION VERSUS HATE …
Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India. 4. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SCR 594 Further, there is a fundamental duty imposed upon individual to abandon activities depreciatory to dignity of an individual. With such safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution itself in favour of dignified life, it is important

Speech and Harm: Genocide Denial, Hate Speech and …
the main issue of exploring the relevance of hate speech for denial, focusing, first, on the relationship between hate speech and freedom of expression, and the possible applicability of present hate speech provisions to instances of denial (Part 4); and second, on the extent to

PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF HATE CRIMES AND …
(f) combat the commission of hate crimes and hate speech in a co-ordinated manner; and (g) gather and record data on hate crimes and hate speech. Offence of hate crime 3. (1) A hate crime is an offence recognised under any law, the commission of which by a person is motivated by that person’s prejudice or intolerance towards the victim of

HATE SPEECH—DEFINITIONS & EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
hate speech3 and on pornography4 argue that harm can occur whether the hate speech is expressed in vituperative terms or not, and whether epithets are used or not. According to this literature, the defining features of hate speech are not whether it is 1. James Weinstein, Hate Speech Bans, Democracy and Political Legitimacy, 32 CONST.

John Stuart Mill s Harm Principle and Free Speech: Expanding …
unregulated free speech, and Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) to regulate speech that threatens unconsented-to harm. Speech should be regulated to minimize such harm, ensuring that the regulation itself does not cause greater harm than it prevents, and that the interestsof allpersons are treated with equal concern.

The Harm in Hate Speech
The Harm in Hate Speech. By Jeremy Waldron. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012. 292 pp. $26.95 cloth. Reviewed by Richard Delgado, Seattle University This well-crafted volume by Jeremy Waldron, who teaches law and philosophy at New York University and Oxford, addresses—in the words of the title—the harm in hate speech. Waldron ...

THE NORMATIVITY OF USING PRISON TO CONTROL HATE …
CONTROL HATE SPEECH: THE HOLLOWNESS OF WALDRON’S HARM THEORY Dennis J. Baker* and Lucy X. Zhao** We question the justice of using prison sentences to control hate speech. It is argued that prison sentences should be used only to deter offensive and hateful speech that harms others. However, the harm requirement cannot be satisﬁed

Kōrero Whakamauāhara: Hate Speech
society at large and the discord that hate speech can create between groups.8 New York University Professor Jeremy Waldron, author of The Harm in Hate Speech, argues that regulating hate speech protects the public good of dignity-based assurance:9 Dignity . . . is precisely what hate speech laws are designed to protect-not dignity in the sense of

Hate Speech: A Pragmatic Assessment of the European Court …
Nov 16, 2023 · a working definition of hate speech: hate speech is best understood as a public speech act, aimed at subordinating individuals, which causes harm to targeted groups. Second,

Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech …
Aug 18, 2021 · the offence of hate speech. • 4(1)(b): creates an offence when hate speech material is intentionally distributed or made available in cyber space. • 4(1)(c): any person who intentionally displays any material or makes available any material which constitutes hate speech, which is accessible by or directed at a specific person who can be ...

Psychology and hate speech: a critical and restorative …
psychological hurt and the psychological harm of hate speech is undeniable.4 A frame for understanding and a way of relating The court hearing constituted a critical encounter between psychology and the law – both powerful systems of meaning-making about the substance and effects of hateful prejudice. In this encounter,

Online hate speech victimization: consequences for victims …
hate speech almost constantly, an inuence on insecurity feelings outside the Internet would suggest far-reaching signicance of hate speech in the daily lives of those ... or denial of (serious) harm. Accord-ing to Agnew (1985), such rationalizations may explain the low global correlation between general victimiza-tion and fear of crime and ...

False Speech and the First Amendment: Constitutional Limits …
Aug 1, 2022 · subcategories of false speech without violating the First Amendment. For example, defamation, fraud, political advertisements, and broadcast speech are subject to special considerations. This In Focus highlights some relevant constitutional considerations in crafting new regulations of false speech. First Amendment Protections for False Speech

Hate speech is a broad term used to describe speech which
hate speech, and so are missed by the traditional legal category of incitement. Because hate speech, in whatever form it takes, can cause serious and recognizable harms, I suggest that the legal cate gory of incitement could be interpreted broadly to include forms of hate speech traditionally classified as political or academic debate.

Slurs, Pejoratives, and Hate Speech - PhilPapers
mechanisms underpinning racist hate speech, sexist speech, pornography, and micro-aggressions and makes the case that oppressive speech not only causes but also constitutes harm. Kennedy 2002 is a monograph dedicated to the N-word, highlighting its variety of

Hate speech in public discourse: a pessimistic defense of …
influential defense of hate speech bans in The Harm in Hate Speech. Waldron’s argument is clear and compelling, not least because it is rooted in an attractive picture of justice and of what it means to respect human dignity. Moreover, it helpfully integrates the insights which

United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech
3 UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH: DETAILED GUIDANCE | SEPTEMBER 2020 Foreword by the Secretary-General UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH: DETAILED GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION FOR UNITED NATIONS FIELD PRESENCES 1 Developed by the Office …

Freedom of Speech: An Overview - CRS Reports
Sep 13, 2024 · The Free Speech Clause principally constrains government regulation of private speech. Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment. Even when the government is regulating private speech, a court reviewing a First Amendment challenge may decide that the

Report - A Conceptual Analysis of the Overlaps and …
speech, arguing that the strict differentiation between hate speech, misinformation and disinformation leads to siloed efforts and hinders recognising the overall harm these forms of

Screenshot for #099 - What's the Harm in Hate Speech?
The democratic legitimacy argument against hate speech. 17. A law is legitimate = (i) citizens have a moral duty to obey the law; and (ii) the government is morally permitted to punish people for breaking it.

Classroom: The Problem of Hate Speech* - JSTOR
Classroom: The Problem of Hate Speech* by Nancy C. Cornwell Introduction Academic freedom, which includes freedom of discussion in the classroom ... harm, are less likely than men to physically strike out at men in response to gendered insults. It also is unlikely, as Lawrence notes, that epithets occur in situations where ...

Escalating Linguistic Violence: From Microaggressions to Hate …
Davis, another legal critical race theorist. However, none of these papers say much about hate speech. Tynes et al. (2019) discusses hate speech at some length, but only in an online context and without attempting to specify what differentiates microaggressions and hate speech. Levchak (2018) does the most to distinguish microaggressions

The Harm In Hate Speech