Extreme Speech and DemocracyIvan Hare, James Weinstein Oxford University Press, 2009 - 647 halaman Commitment to free speech is a fundamental precept of all liberal democracies. However, democracies can differ significantly when addressing the constitutionality of laws regulating certain kinds of speech. In the United States, for instance, the commitment to free speech under the First Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court to protect the public expression of the most noxious racist ideology and hence to render unconstitutional even narrow restrictions on hate speech. In contrast, governments have been accorded considerable leeway to restrict racist and other extreme expression in almost every other democracy, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and other European countries. This book considers the legal responses of various liberal democracies towards hate speech and other forms of extreme expression, and examines the following questions: What accounts for the marked differences in attitude towards the constitutionality of hate speech regulation? Does hate speech regulation violate the core free speech principle constitutive of democracy? Has the traditional US position on extreme expression justifiably not found favor elsewhere? Do values such as the commitment to equality or dignity legitimately override the right to free speech in some circumstances? With contributions from experts in a range of disciplines, this book offers an in-depth examination of the tensions that arise between democracy's promises. |
Isi
Table of Cases | xxvii |
Table of Legislation | xxxix |
Table of Conventions and International Instruments | xlix |
List of Contributors | liii |
Free Speech Democracy and the Suppression of Extreme Speech Past and Present | 1 |
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND | 9 |
HATE SPEECH | 121 |
Edisi yang lain - Lihat semua
Istilah dan frasa umum
accepted allow Amendment American applied approach argued argument authority bans belief broadcast cause civil claim Code concern considered constitutional context Convention conviction Court crime criminal criticism cultural danger debate decision democracy democratic directed discrimination discussion effect encouragement equality European example expression extreme speech fact free speech freedom freedom of expression French grounds harm hate speech hatred Holocaust denial Human Rights ideas identity important incitement individual insulting interest International Islamic issue July Justice justify legislation liberal limited matter means minorities Muslim norms offence opinion particular parties person political practice present Press principle prohibition protection public discourse published question race racial racist reason reference regulation relation religion religious requires respect response restrictions rule sexual social society statements terrorism United University values violation violence women