1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 22, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 22, 2019

Free Speech and Hate Speech

Abstract

Should hate speech be banned? This article contends that the debate on this question must be disaggregated into discrete analytical stages, lest its participants continue to talk past one another. The first concerns the scope of the moral right to freedom of expression, and whether hate speech falls within the right's protective ambit. If it does, hate speech bans are necessarily unjust. If not, we turn to the second stage, which assesses whether speakers have moral duties to refrain from hate speech. The article canvasses several possible duties from which such a duty could be derived, including duties not to threaten, harass, offend, defame, or incite. If there is a duty to refrain from hate speech, it is yet a further question whether the duty should actually be enforced. This third stage depends on pragmatic concerns involving epistemic fallibility, the abuse of state power, and the benefits of counter-speech over coercion.

Keyword(s): autonomy, defamation, democracy, free speech, hate speech
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343
2019-05-11
2024-06-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/22/1/annurev-polisci-051517-012343.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alexander L 2000. Incitement and freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech and Incitement Against Democracy D Kretzmer, F Hazan 101–18 The Hague: Kluwer Law
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander L 2005. Is There a Right to Freedom of Expression? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexander L 2012. Fighting for words. Natl. Rev. Dec. 17. https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2012/12/17/fighting-words/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Amdur R 1980. Scanlon on freedom of expression. Philos. Public Aff. 9:3287–300
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Arneson R 2004. Democracy is not intrinsically just. Justice and Democracy: Essays for Brian Barry K Dowding, R Goodin, C Pateman 40–58 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Badano G, Nuti A 2018. Under pressure: political liberalism, the rise of unreasonableness, and the complexity of containment. J. Political Philos. 26:2145–68
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker CE 1978. Scope of the first amendment freedom of speech. UCLA Law Rev 25:964–1040
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker CE 1997. Harm, liberty, and free speech. Southern Calif. Law Rev. 70:979–1020
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker CE 2009. Autonomy and hate speech. See Weinstein & Hare 2009 139–57
  10. Bambauer D 2006. Shopping badly: cognitive biases, communications, and the fallacy of the marketplace of ideas. Univ. Colorado Law Rev. 77:649–710
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Barendt E 2009. Incitement to, and glorification of, terrorism. See Weinstein & Hare 2009 445–62
  12. Beerbohm E 2012. In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Benesch S 2012. Dangerous speech: a proposal to prevent group violence World Policy Inst. Rep., Jan. 12. https://worldpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Dangerous-Speech-Guidelines-Benesch-January-2012.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Benesch S, Ruths D, Dillon KP, Saleem HM, Wright L 2016. Considerations for successful counterspeech Rep., Dangerous Speech Proj. https://dangerousspeech.org/considerations-for-successful-counterspeech
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brettschneider C 2007. Democratic Rights: The Substance of Self-Government Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brettschneider C 2012. When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Brietzke P 1997. How and why the marketplace of ideas fails. Valparaiso Univ. Law Rev. 31:951–69
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Brink DO 2001. Millian principles, freedom of expression and hate speech. Legal Theory 7:119–57
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Brison S 1998. The autonomy defense of free speech. Ethics 108:2312–39
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Brown A 2008. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006: a Millian response. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Political Philos. 11:11–24
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Brown A 2015. Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Brown A 2017a. What is hate speech? Part 1: The myth of hate. Law Philos 36:4419–68
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Brown A 2017b. What is hate speech? Part 2: Family resemblances. Law Philos 36:5561–613
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Brown A 2017c. The “who?” question in the hate speech debate. Part 1: Consistency, practical, and formal approaches. Can. J. Law Jurisprudence 29:2275–320
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Brown A 2017d. The “who?” question in the hate speech debate. Part 2: Functional democratic approaches. Can. J. Law Jurisprudence 30:123–55
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Brown R 2016. Defusing hate: a strategic communication guide to counteract dangerous speech Rep., US Holocaust Memorial Museum Washington, DC: https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/how-to-prevent-genocide/hate-speech-and-incitement-to-genocide/defusing-hate-a-guide-to-counteract-dangerous-speech
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chambers S 2009. Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy?. Political Theory 37:323–50
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Christiano T 2008. The Constitution of Equality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Clayton M, Stevens D 2014. When God commands disobedience: political liberalism and unreasonable religions. Res. Publ. 20:65–84
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohen J 1993. Freedom of expression. Philos. Public Aff. 22:3207–63
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Darwall S 1977. Two kinds of respect. Ethics 88:136–49
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Delgado R 1982. Words that wound: a tort action for racial insults, epithets, and name-calling. Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Rev 17:133–81
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Delgado R, Stefanic J 2018. Must We Defend Nazis? Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy New York: NYU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Duff RA 2014. Towards a modest legal moralism. Criminal Law Philos 8:1217–35
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Dworkin R 1996. Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Dworkin R 2006. A new map of censorship. Index Censorship 35:1130–33
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Dworkin R 2009. Forward. See Weinstein & Hare 2009 123–38
  38. Emerson T 1970. The System of Freedom of Expression New York: Vintage
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Estlund D 2007. Democratic Authority Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Feinberg J 1984. The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Volume 1: Harm to Others Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Feinberg J 1988. The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Volume 2: Offense to Others Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Fish S 1994. There's No Such Thing as Free Speech…and It's a Good Thing Too Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Garsten B 2009. Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Garsten B 2011. The rhetoric revival in political theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 14:164–74
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Glaeser E, Sunstein C 2014. Does more speech correct falsehoods?. J. Legal Stud. 43:165–93
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Gordon J 1997. John Stuart Mill and the ‘marketplace of ideas’. Soc. Theory Pract. 23:2235–49
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Greenawalt K 1989. Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Greenawalt K 1995. Fighting Words: Individuals, Communities and Liberties of Speech Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Greene A, Simpson R 2017. Tolerating hate in the name of democracy. Mod. Law Rev. 80:40746–65
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Heinze E 2016. Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Heinze E, Phillipson G 2018. Debating Hate Speech Oxford, UK: Hart
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Heyman S 2009. Hate speech, public discourse, and the first amendment. See Weinstein & Hare 2009 123–38
  53. Howard JW 2016. Moral subversion and structural entrapment. J. Political Philos. 24:24–46
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Howard JW 2018. The labors of justice: democracy, respect, and judicial review. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Political Philos. 22:176–99
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Husak D 2008. Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Ingber S 1984. The marketplace of ideas: a legitimizing myth. Duke Law J 1984:11–91
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Kendrick L 2017. Free speech as a special right. Philos. Public Aff. 45:287–117
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Kolodny N 2014. Rule over none. II: Social equality and the justification of democracy. Philos. Public Aff. 42:4287–336
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Landemore H 2012. Democratic Reason Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  60. MacKinnon CA 1996. Only Words Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Marshall W 1995. In defense of the search for truth as a first amendment justification. Ga. Law Rev. 30:1–39
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Matsuda M 1989. Public response to racist speech: considering the victim's story. Mich. Law Rev. 87:2320–81
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Meiklejohn A 1948. Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government New York: Harper and Brothers
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Meiklejohn A 1960. Political Freedom New York: Harper and Brothers
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Mill JS 1978 (1859). On Liberty E Rapaport Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Morgan G 2007. Mill's liberalism, security, and group defamation. Freedom of Expression: Counting the Costs G Newey 121–43 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Nagel T 2002. Concealment and Exposure Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Nielsen L 2004. License to Harass: Law, Hierarchy, and Offensive Public Speech Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Nozick R 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia New York: Basic Books
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Parekh B 2012. Is there a case for banning hate speech?. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses M Herz, P Molnar 37–56 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Post R 1991. Racist speech, democracy, and the first amendment. William Mary Law Rev 32:267–327
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Post R 2009. Hate speech. See Weinstein & Hare 2009 123–38
  73. Post R 2011. Participatory democracy as a theory of free speech: a reply. Va. Law Rev. 97:617–32
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Quong J 2010. Liberalism Without Perfection Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Rawls J 2005. Political Liberalism New York: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Raz J 1991. Free expression and personal identification. Oxford J. Legal Stud. 11:3303–24
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Rosenblum N 1998. Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses of Pluralism in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Scanlon T 1972. A theory of freedom of expression. Philos. Public Aff. 1:2204–26
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Scanlon T 1979. Freedom of expression and categories of expression. Univ. Pittsburgh Law Rev. 40:519–50
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Scanlon T 2011. Comment on Shiffrin's thinker-based approach to freedom of speech. Const. Comment. 27:327–35
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Schauer F 1982. Free Speech: A Philosophical Inquiry Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Schauer F 1983. Must speech be special?. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 78:1284
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Schauer F 1993. The phenomenology of speech and harm. Ethics 103:46350–653
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Schauer F 2009. Is it better to be safe than sorry? Free speech and the precautionary principle. Pepperdine Law Rev 36:2301–16
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Schauer F 2010. Facts and the first amendment. UCLA Law Rev 57:897–919
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Schauer F 2015. Free speech on Tuesdays. Law Philos 34:119–40
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Schwartzman M 2012. The ethics of reasoning from conjecture. J. Moral Philos. 9:4521–44
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Scoccia D 1996. Can liberals support a ban on violent pornography?. Ethics 106:4776–99
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Shiffrin S 2003. Speech, death, and double effect. New York Univ. Law Rev. 78:1135–85
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Shiffrin S 2014. Speech Matters Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Simester A, von Hirsch A 2011. Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation Oxford, UK: Hart
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Simpson R 2013. Dignity, harm, and hate speech. Law Philos 32:6701–28
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Sparrow R, Goodin R 2007. The competition of ideas: market or garden?. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Political Philos. 4:245–58
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Stone G 1987. Content-neutral restriction. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 54:46–118
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Stone G 1994. Hate speech and the U.S. Constitution. East Eur. Const. Rev. 3:78–82
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Stone G 2004. Perilous Times New York: W.W. Norton
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Strossen N 1990. Regulating racist speech on campus: a modest proposal?. Duke Law J 39:484–572
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Sunstein C 1986. Pornography and the first amendment. Duke Law J 34:4589–627
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Sunstein C 1993. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech New York: Free Press
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Sunstein C 2018. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Tadros V 2016a. Permissibility in a world of wrongdoing. Philos. Public Aff. 44:2101–32
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Tadros V 2016b. Wrongs and Crimes Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Tsesis A 2001. Hate in cyberspace: regulating hate speech on the internet. San Diego Law Rev 38:817
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Waldron J 1987. Mill and the value of moral distress. Political Stud 35:5410–23
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Waldron J 1989. Rights in conflict. Ethics 99:3503–19
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Waldron J 1999. Law and Disagreement Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Waldron J 2012. The Harm in Hate Speech Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Weinstein J, Hare I 2009. Extreme Speech and Democracy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Wellman C 2006. A defense of stiffer penalties for hate crimes. Hypatia 21:262–80
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Viehoff D 2014. Democratic equality and political authority. Philos. Public Aff. 42:4337–75
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Volokh E 2011. In defense of the marketplace of ideas/search for truth as a theory of free speech protection. Va. Law Rev. 97:595–601
     [Google Scholar]
  112. von Hirsch A, Simester A 2006. Penalising offensive behaviour: constitutive and mediating principles. Incivilities: Regulating Offensive Behaviour A von Hirsch, A Simester 115–32 Oxford, UK: Hart
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Yong C 2011. Does freedom of speech include hate speech?. Res Publica 17:385–403
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Zimmerman M 1985. Intervening agents and moral responsibility. Philos. Q. 35:141347–57
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error