A key legal victory for civil rights groups came in 1952 when group libel law was affirmed by the supreme court in Beauharnais v.
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”. These organizations used group libel as a legal framework for describing the violence of hate speech and addressing its harm. Starting in the 1940s and 50s, different 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. Although these thinkers believe speech can and should be limited in certain contexts, they firmly contend that all speech, including hate speech, is a part of the growth and development of the community. Denying others the ability to evaluate statements because one believes those words to be offensive is to make a unilateral decision that is ultimately harmful to the collective good. Here, Mill asserts the necessity of hate speech as a stepping stone to truth. Mill writes in On Liberty “They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging… All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility”. This theory privileges the community’s progression over individual desires. Within this theory, there exists no partial truth everything must be debated in order to determine what is true and what is false.
ANIMOSITY DEFINITION FREE
This perspective, often attributed to mid-19th century philosopher John Stewart Mill, claims that hate speech is an unavoidable part of the wider current of free speech. One theory on the merits of freedom of speech, and consequently hate speech, is the view that public discourse ought to serve as a marketplace of ideas. In this section, the term “theories of hate speech” is being used as an umbrella term describing the ways in which different thinkers throughout history have defined hate speech and have provided frameworks for understanding its impact. In other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. Additionally, in some countries, including the United States, much of what falls under the category of "hate speech" is constitutionally protected.
In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics. 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. There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and hate speech legislation. Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. 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". Hate speech 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".
0 kommentar(er)
