Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:58:45 -0400 From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Subject: Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
"Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis"
BY: MICHEL ROSENFELD Cardozo Law School
Document: Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=265939
Paper ID: Cardozo Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 41 Date: April 2001
Contact: MICHEL ROSENFELD Email: Mailto:ROSENFEM@juris.law.nyu.edu Postal: Cardozo Law School 55 Fifth Ave New York, NY 10003 USA Phone: 212 790-0234 Fax: 212 790-0205
ABSTRACT: The United States protects much hate speech that is banned in other Western constitutional democracies and under international human rights covenants and conventions. In the United States, only hate speech that leads to "incitement to violence" can be constitutionally restricted, while under the alternative approach found elsewhere, bans properly extend to hate speech leading to "incitement to hatred". The article undertakes a comparative analysis in light of changes brought by new technologies,such as the Internet, which allow for worldwide spread of protected hate speech originating in the United States. After evaluating the respective doctrines, arguments and values involved, the article concludes that the Unted States approach is less defensible than its counterparts elsewhere.
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/