Hate speech

Last updated

Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". [1] The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". [2] There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

Contents

There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and hate speech legislation. [3] The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or that disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify protected groups based on certain characteristics. [4] [5] [6] In some countries, including the United States, what is usually labelled "hate speech" is constitutionally protected. [7] [8] [9] [10] In some other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

Hate speech is generally accepted to be one of the prerequisites for mass atrocities such as genocide. [11] Incitement to genocide is an extreme form of hate speech, and has been prosecuted in international courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

History

Starting in the 1940s and 50s, various American civil rights groups responded to the atrocities of World War II by advocating for restrictions on hateful speech targeting groups on the basis of race and religion. [12] These organizations used group libel as a legal framework for describing the violence of hate speech and addressing its harm. In his discussion of the history of criminal libel, scholar Jeremy Waldron states that these laws helped "vindicate public order, not just by preempting violence, but by upholding against attack a shared sense of the basic elements of each person's status, dignity, and reputation as a citizen or member of society in good standing". [13] A key legal victory for this view came in 1952 when group libel law was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Beauharnais v. Illinois. [14] However, the group libel approach lost ground due to a rise in support for individual rights within civil rights movements during the 60s. [15] Critiques of group defamation laws are not limited to defenders of individual rights. Some legal theorists, such as critical race theorist Richard Delgado, support legal limits on hate speech, but claim that defamation is too narrow a category to fully counter hate speech. Ultimately, Delgado advocates a legal strategy that would establish a specific section of tort law for responding to racist insults, citing the difficulty of receiving redress under the existing legal system. [16]

Hate speech laws

After World War II, Germany criminalized Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") to prevent resurgence of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany. Most European countries have likewise implemented various laws and regulations regarding hate speech, and the European Union's Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA [17] requires member states to criminalize hate crimes and speech (though individual implementation and interpretation of this framework varies by state). [18] [19] requires member states to criminalize hate crimes and speech (though individual implementation and interpretation of this framework varies by state).

International human rights laws from the United Nations Human Rights Committee have been protecting freedom of expression, and one of the most fundamental documents is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drafted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948. [20] Article 19 of the UDHR states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." [20]

While there are fundamental laws in place designed to protect freedom of expression, there are also multiple international laws that expand on the UDHR and pose limitations and restrictions, specifically concerning the safety and protection of individuals. [21]

Most developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Canada, [25] Denmark, France, Germany, India, Ireland, [26] South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. [27] The United States does not have hate speech laws, because the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that they violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [10]

Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. The laws designed to protect public order require that a higher threshold be violated, so they are not often enforced. For example, a 1992 study found that only one person was prosecuted in Northern Ireland in the preceding 21 years for violating a law against incitement to religious violence. The laws meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced. [28]

State-sanctioned hate speech

A few states, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Rwanda Hutu factions, actors in the Yugoslav Wars and Ethiopia have been described as spreading official hate speech or incitement to genocide. [29] [30] [31]

Internet

The rise of the internet and social media has presented a new medium through which hate speech can spread. Hate speech on the internet can be traced all the way back to its initial years, with a 1983 bulletin board system created by neo-Nazi George Dietz considered the first instance of hate speech online. [32] As the internet evolved over time hate speech continued to spread and create its footprint; the first hate speech website Stormfront was published in 1996, and hate speech has become one of the central challenges for social media platforms. [33]

The structure and nature of the internet contribute to both the creation and persistence of hate speech online. The widespread use and access to the internet gives hate mongers an easy way to spread their message to wide audiences with little cost and effort. According to the International Telecommunication Union, approximately 66% of the world population has access to the internet. [34] Additionally, the pseudo-anonymous nature of the internet imboldens many to make statements constituting hate speech that they otherwise wouldn't for fear of social or real life repercussions. [35] While some governments and companies attempt to combat this type of behavior by leveraging real name systems, difficulties in verifying identities online, public opposition to such policies, and sites that don't enforce these policies leave large spaces for this behavior to persist. [36] [37]

Because the internet crosses national borders, comprehensive government regulations on online hate speech can be difficult to implement and enforce. Governments who want to regulate hate speech contend with issues around lack of jurisdiction and conflicting viewpoints from other countries. [38] In an early example of this, the case of Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme had a French court hold Yahoo! liable for allowing Nazi memorabilia auctions to be visible to the public. Yahoo! refused to comply with the ruling and ultimately won relief in a U.S. court which found that the ruling was unenforceable in the U.S. [38] Disagreements like these make national level regulations difficult, and while there are some international efforts and laws that attempt to regulate hate speech and its online presence, as with most international agreements the implementation and interpretation of these treaties varies by country. [39]

Much of the regulation regarding online hate speech is performed voluntarily by individual companies. Many major tech companies have adopted terms of service which outline allowed content on their platform, often banning hate speech. In a notable step for this, on 31 May 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, jointly agreed to a European Union code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their services within 24 hours. [40] Techniques employed by these companies to regulate hate speech include user reporting, Artificial Intelligence flagging, and manual review of content by employees. [41] Major search engines like Google Search also tweak their algorithms to try and suppress hateful content from appearing in their results. [42] However, despite these efforts hate speech remains a persistent problem online. According to a 2021 study by the Anti Defamation League 33% of Americans were the target of identity based harassment in the preceding year, a statistic which has not noticeably shifted downwards despite increasing self regulation by companies. [43]

Commentary

Several activists and scholars have criticized the practice of limiting hate speech. Kim Holmes, Vice President of the conservative Heritage Foundation and a critic of hate speech theory, has argued that it "assumes bad faith on the part of people regardless of their stated intentions" and that it "obliterates the ethical responsibility of the individual". [44] Rebecca Ruth Gould, a professor of Islamic and Comparative Literature at the University of Birmingham, argues that laws against hate speech constitute viewpoint discrimination (which is prohibited by the First Amendment in the United States) as the legal system punishes some viewpoints but not others. [45] Other scholars, such as Gideon Elford, argue instead that "insofar as hate speech regulation targets the consequences of speech that are contingently connected with the substance of what is expressed then it is viewpoint discriminatory in only an indirect sense." [46] John Bennett argues that restricting hate speech relies on questionable conceptual and empirical foundations [47] and is reminiscent of efforts by totalitarian regimes to control the thoughts of their citizens. [48]

Civil libertarians say that hate speech laws have been used, in both developing and developed nations, to persecute minority viewpoints and critics of the government. [49] [50] [51] [52] Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen says that, while efforts to censor hate speech have the goal of protecting the most vulnerable, they are ineffective and may have the opposite effect: disadvantaged and ethnic minorities being charged with violating laws against hate speech. [49] Journalist Glenn Greenwald says that hate speech laws in Europe have been used to censor left-wing views as much as they have been used to combat hate speech. [51]

Miisa Kreandner and Eriz Henze argue that hate speech laws are arbitrary, as they only protect some categories of people but not others. [53] [54] Henze argues the only way to resolve this problem without abolishing hate speech laws would be to extend them to all possible conceivable categories, which Henze argues would amount to totalitarian control over speech. [53]

Michael Conklin argues that there are benefits to hate speech that are often overlooked. He contends that allowing hate speech provides a more accurate view of the human condition, provides opportunities to change people's minds, and identifies certain people that may need to be avoided in certain circumstances. [55] According to one psychological research study, a high degree of psychopathy is "a significant predictor" for involvement in online hate activity, while none of the other 7 potential factors examined were found to have a statistically significant predictive power. [56]

Political philosopher Jeffrey W. Howard considers the popular framing of hate speech as "free speech vs. other political values" as a mischaracterization. He refers to this as the "balancing model", and says it seeks to weigh the benefit of free speech against other values such as dignity and equality for historically marginalized groups. Instead, he believes that the crux of debate should be whether or not freedom of expression is inclusive of hate speech. [27] Research indicates that when people support censoring hate speech, they are motivated more by concerns about the effects the speech has on others than they are about its effects on themselves. [57] Women are somewhat more likely than men to support censoring hate speech due to greater perceived harm of hate speech, which some researchers believe may be due to gender differences in empathy towards targets of hate speech. [58]

See also

Related Research Articles

A hate crime is crime where a perpetrator targets a victim because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</span> Treaty adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1965

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty that commits nations to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. It was adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976 after its thirty-fifth ratification or accession. As of June 2024, the Covenant has 174 parties and six more signatories without ratification, most notably the People's Republic of China and Cuba; North Korea is the only state that has tried to withdraw.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to pursue the enforcement of its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948, during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and has 153 state parties as of June 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of Holocaust denial</span>

Between 1941 and 1945, the government of Nazi Germany perpetrated the Holocaust: a large-scale industrialised genocide in which approximately six million Jews were systematically murdered throughout German-occupied Europe. Since World War II, several countries have criminalised Holocaust denial—the assertion by antisemites that the genocide was fabricated or has been exaggerated. Currently, 17 European countries, along with Israel and Canada, have laws in place that cover Holocaust denial as a punishable offence. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial as a whole, including that of the Holocaust. Among the countries that have banned Holocaust denial, Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine have also banned Nazi symbols. Additionally, any expression of genocide justification is also a criminal offence in several countries, as is any attempt to portray Nazism in a positive light.

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was a provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act dealing with hate messages. The provision prohibited online communications which were "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. Complaints under this section were brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and if the Commission found sufficient evidence, the case would be heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Section 13 was repealed by the Parliament of Canada effective June 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech by country</span>

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Inspired by Canada's involvement in the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the current legal framework for human rights in Canada consists of constitutional entitlements, and statutory human rights codes, both federal and provincial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech</span> Right to communicate ones opinions and ideas

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Speech crimes are certain kinds of speech that are criminalized by promulgated laws or rules. Criminal speech is a direct preemptive restriction on freedom of speech, and the broader concept of freedom of expression.

Defamation of religion is an issue that was repeatedly addressed by some member states of the United Nations (UN) from 1999 until 2010. Several non-binding resolutions were voted on and accepted by the UN condemning "defamation of religion". The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), now known as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, sought to prohibit expression that would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences". Religious groups, human rights activists, free-speech activists, and several countries in the West condemned the resolutions arguing they amounted to an international blasphemy law. Critics of the resolutions, including human rights groups, argued that they were used to politically strengthen domestic anti-blasphemy and religious defamation laws, which are used to imprison journalists, students and other peaceful political dissidents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of expression in Canada</span>

Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, in practice the Charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable" limits censoring speech. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination</span> 1969 United Nations human rights instrument

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention. A third-generation human rights instrument, the Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races. The Convention also requires its parties to criminalize hate speech and criminalize membership in racist organizations.

Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide. He was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined 3000 Swiss francs.

<i>An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code</i> Canadian federal law relating to gender identity

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code is a law passed in 2017 by the Parliament of Canada. It was introduced as Bill C-16 of the first session of the 42nd Parliament. The law adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and also to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing.

Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law. A related legal concept is protected speech. Just as freedom of speech protects free expression, in many cases it similarly protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which that individual disagrees.

Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.

Online hate speech is a type of speech that takes place online with the purpose of attacking a person or a group based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, and/or gender. Online hate speech is not easily defined, but can be recognized by the degrading or dehumanizing function it serves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incitement to genocide</span> Crime under international law

Incitement to genocide is a crime under international law which prohibits inciting (encouraging) the commission of genocide. An extreme form of hate speech, incitement to genocide is an inchoate offense and is theoretically subject to prosecution even if genocide does not occur, although charges have never been brought in an international court without mass violence having occurred. "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" was forbidden by the Genocide Convention in 1948. Incitement to genocide is often cloaked in metaphor and euphemism and may take many forms beyond direct advocacy, including dehumanization and accusation in a mirror.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incitement to terrorism</span> Category in some national legal systems

Incitement to terrorism is a category in some national legal systems which may criminalize direct encouragement of acts of violence or praise for proscribed terrorist organizations. It was also prohibited by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 in 2005.

Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".

References

  1. ↑ "hate speech". dictionary.cambridge.org.
  2. ↑ John T. Nockleby, "Hate Speech," in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, eds. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, vol. 3 (2nd ed., Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, pp. 1277–1279); quoted by Brown-Sica, Margaret; Beall, Jeffrey (2008). "Library 2.0 and the Problem of Hate Speech". Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship. 9 (2). Retrieved 22 June 2021.
  3. ↑ "Herz, Michael and Peter Molnar, eds. 2012. The content and context of hate speech. Cambridge University Press" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 July 2018. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  4. ↑ "Criminal Justice Act 2003". www.legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 3 January 2017.
  5. ↑ An Activist's Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles (PDF) (Report). 14 November 2010. p. 125. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 January 2017.
  6. ↑ Kinney, Terry A. (5 June 2008). "Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms". The International Encyclopedia of Communication. doi:10.1002/9781405186407.wbiech004. ISBN   978-1405186407.
  7. ↑ "CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech". Archived from the original on 24 July 2019. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
  8. ↑ Turley, Jonathan (25 February 2023). "Yes, hate speech is constitutionally protected". The Hill. Retrieved 24 September 2024.
  9. ↑ Stone, Geoffrey R. (1994). "Hate Speech and the U.S. Constitution." Archived 27 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine East European Constitutional Review, vol. 3, pp. 78–82.
  10. 1 2 Volokh, Eugene (5 May 2015). "No, there's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 June 2017.
  11. ↑ Gordon, Gregory S. (2017). Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-061270-2. SSRN   3230050 . Retrieved 15 January 2022.
  12. ↑ Walker, Samuel (1994). Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. p. 79.
  13. ↑ Waldron, Jeremy (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press. p. 47.
  14. ↑ Waldron, Jeremy (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press. p. 41.
  15. ↑ Walker, Samuel (1994). Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. p. 78.
  16. ↑ Delgado, Richard. Matsuda, Mari J. (ed.). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Westview Press. p. 90.
  17. 1 2 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law
  18. ↑ "Combating hate speech and hate crime". commission.europa.eu. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
  19. ↑ Document summary of Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA [17]
  20. 1 2 Nations, United. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". United Nations. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
  21. ↑ Altman, Andrew (31 May 2012), Maitra, Ishani; McGowan, Mary Kate (eds.), "Freedom of Expression and Human Rights Law: The Case of Holocaust Denial", Speech and Harm, Oxford University Press, pp. 24–49, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236282.003.0002, ISBN   978-0-19-923628-2 , retrieved 8 December 2021
  22. ↑ Mendel, Toby (2012), Herz, Michael; Molnar, Peter (eds.), "Does International Law Provide for Consistent Rules on Hate Speech?", The Content and Context of Hate Speech, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 417–429, doi:10.1017/cbo9781139042871.029, ISBN   978-1139042871
  23. ↑ "OHCHR | Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination". www.ohchr.org. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
  24. 1 2 "OHCHR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". www.ohchr.org. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
  25. ↑ Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c. C-46, s. 319
  26. ↑ "Dáil passes hate crime legislation". RTE. 24 October 2024. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
  27. 1 2 Howard, Jeffrey W. (2019). "Free Speech and Hate Speech". Annual Review of Political Science. 22 (1): 93–109. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343 .
  28. ↑ Bell, Jeannine (Summer 2009). "Restraining the heartless: racist speech and minority rights". Indiana Law Journal. 84: 963–979. SSRN   1618848 . Retrieved 21 February 2021.
  29. ↑ Cotler, Irwin (2012). Herz, Michael; Molnar, Peter (eds.). "State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide". The Content and Context of Hate Speech: 430–455. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139042871.030. ISBN   978-1139042871.
  30. ↑ Dozier, Kimberly (10 February 2020). "Saudi Arabia Rebuffs Trump Administration's Requests to Stop Teaching Hate Speech in Schools". Time.
  31. ↑ de Waal, Alex (17 September 2021). "The world watches as Abiy loses it – and risks losing Ethiopia, too". World Peace Foundation . Archived from the original on 21 September 2021. Retrieved 17 November 2021.
  32. ↑ Levin, Brian (2002). "Cyberhate: A Legal and Historical Analysis of Extremists' Use of Computer Networks in America". American Behavioral Scientist. 45 (6): 958–988. doi:10.1177/0002764202045006004. ISSN   0002-7642. S2CID   142998931.
  33. ↑ Meddaugh, Priscilla Marie; Kay, Jack (30 October 2009). "Hate Speech or "Reasonable Racism?" The Other in Stormfront". Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 24 (4): 251–268. doi:10.1080/08900520903320936. ISSN   0890-0523. S2CID   144527647.
  34. ↑ "Measuring digital development: Facts and Figures 2022". ITU. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  35. ↑ Citron, Danielle Keats; Norton, Helen L. (2011). "Intermediaries and Hate Speech: Fostering Digital Citizenship for Our Information Age". Boston University Law Review. 91. Rochester, NY. SSRN   1764004.
  36. ↑ "Google reverses 'real names' policy, apologizes". ZDNET. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  37. ↑ "Online real-name system unconstitutional". koreatimes. 23 August 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  38. 1 2 Banks, James (2010). "Regulating hate speech online". International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 24 (3): 233–239. doi:10.1080/13600869.2010.522323. ISSN   1360-0869. S2CID   61094808.
  39. ↑ Gagliardone, Iginio; Gal, Danit; Alves, Thiago; Martinez, Gabriela (2015). Countering Online Hate Speech (PDF). Paris: UNESCO Publishing. pp. 7–15. ISBN   978-92-3-100105-5. Archived from the original on 13 March 2022. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
  40. ↑ Hern, Alex (31 May 2016). "Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft sign EU hate speech code". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 June 2016.
  41. ↑ Hatano, Ayako (23 October 2023). "Regulating Online Hate Speech through the Prism of Human Rights Law: The Potential of Localised Content Moderation". The Australian Year Book of International Law Online. 41 (1): 127–156. doi: 10.1163/26660229-04101017 . ISSN   2666-0229.
  42. ↑ Schulze, Elizabeth (4 February 2019). "EU says Facebook, Google and Twitter are getting faster at removing hate speech online". CNBC. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  43. ↑ "Online Hate and Harassment: The American Experience 2021". ADL. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  44. ↑ Holmes, Kim (22 October 2018). "The Origins of "Hate Speech"". heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation.
  45. ↑ Gould, Rebecca Ruth (15 November 2018). "Is the 'Hate' in Hate Speech the 'Hate' in Hate Crime? Waldron and Dworkin on Political Legitimacy". Jurisprudence. SSRN   3284999.
  46. ↑ Elford, Gideon. "Legitimacy, Hate Speech, and Viewpoint Discrimination." Journal of Moral Philosophy 1, no. aop (2020): 1–26.
  47. ↑ Bennett, John T. "The Harm in Hate Speech: A Critique of the Empirical and Legal Bases of Hate Speech Regulation." Hastings Const. LQ 43 (2015): 445.
  48. ↑ Bennett, John. "The Totalitarian Ideological Origins of Hate Speech Regulation." Cap. UL Rev. 46 (2018): 23.
  49. 1 2 Strossen, Nadine (14 December 2018). "Minorities suffer the most from hate-speech laws". Spiked . Retrieved 5 November 2019.
  50. ↑ Brown, Elizabeth Nolan (20 October 2015). "How Hate Speech Laws Work In Practice". Reason . Retrieved 12 April 2024.
  51. 1 2 Greenwald, Glenn (9 August 2017). "In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Often Used to Suppress and Punish Left-Wing Viewpoints". The Intercept . Retrieved 12 April 2024.
  52. ↑ McLaughlin, Sarah (10 January 2019). "Pakistan cites 'hate speech' restriction in effort to censor academic freedom petition". Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression . Retrieved 12 April 2024.
  53. 1 2 Heinze, Eric. "Cumulative jurisprudence and human rights: The example of sexual minorities and hate speech." The International Journal of Human Rights 13, no. 2–3 (2009): 193–209.
  54. ↑ Kreander, Miisa. "The Widening Definition of Hate Speech – How Well Intended Hate Speech Laws Undermine Democracy and the Rule of Law." (2022). [ ISBN missing ][ page needed ]
  55. ↑ Conklin, Michael (2020). "The Overlooked Benefits of 'Hate Speech': Not Just the Lesser of Two Evils". SSRN   3604244.
  56. ↑ Sorokowski, Piotr; Kowal, Marta; Zdybek, Przemysław; Oleszkiewicz, Anna (27 March 2020). "Are Online Haters Psychopaths? Psychological Predictors of Online Hating Behavior". Frontiers in Psychology. 11: 553. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00553 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   7121332 . PMID   32292374.
  57. ↑ Guo, Lei; Johnson, Brett G. (April 2020). "Third-Person Effect and Hate Speech Censorship on Facebook". Social Media + Society. 6 (2). doi: 10.1177/2056305120923003 .
  58. ↑ Downs, Daniel M., and Gloria Cowan. "Predicting the importance of freedom of speech and the perceived harm of hate speech." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42, no. 6 (2012): 1353–1375.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.