Who Decides What Is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech Is Not the Answer

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Ceci ◽  
Wendy M. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Selective Perception ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
Diverse Community ◽  
Shed Light

Recent protests on dozens of campuses have led to the cancellation of controversial talks, and violence has accompanied several of these protests. Psychological science provides an important lens through which to view, understand, and potentially reduce these conflicts. In this article, we frame opposing sides’ arguments within a long-standing corpus of psychological research on selective perception, confirmation bias, myside bias, illusion of understanding, blind-spot bias, groupthink/in-group bias, motivated skepticism, and naive realism. These concepts inform dueling claims: (a) the protestors’ violence was justified by a higher moral responsibility to prevent marginalized groups from being victimized by hate speech, versus (b) the students’ right to hear speakers was infringed upon. Psychological science cannot, however, be the sole arbiter of these campus debates; legal and philosophical considerations are also relevant. Thus, we augment psychological science with insights from these literatures to shed light on complexities associated with positions supporting free speech and those protesting hate speech. We conclude with a set of principles, most supported by empirical research, to inform university policies and help ensure vigorous freedom of expression within the context of an inclusive, diverse community.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Anushka Singh
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
University Of California ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Mob Violence ◽  
A Chain ◽  
The Right ◽  
The University ◽  
Public Lecture

On 1 February 2017 at the University of California, Berkeley, USA, mob violence erupted on campus with 1,500 protesters demanding the cancellation of a public lecture by Milo Yiannopoulos, a British author notorious for his alleged racist and anti-Islamic views.1 Consequently, the event was cancelled triggering a chain of reactions on the desirability and limits of freedom of expression within American democracy. The Left-leaning intellectuals and politicians were accused of allowing the mob violence to become a riot on campus defending it in the name of protest against racism, fascism, and social injustice. In defending the rights of the protesters to not allow ‘illiberal’ or hate speech on campus, however, many claimed that the message conveyed was that only liberals had the right to free speech....

The Nature of Offence

2021 ◽  
pp. 7-34
Author(s):  
Nicholas Hatzis
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Special Problem ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Narrow Definition ◽  
State Coercion ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Offensive Speech

The experience of suffering offence relates to a constellation of unpleasant feelings stirred up when one’s expectations of being treated in a certain way are frustrated. This chapter explores how the nature of offence matters for the way the law responds to offensive conduct. Prohibiting speech which offends poses a special problem because it clashes with the free speech principle, i.e. the idea that there is something particularly important in being allowed to speak our minds, which sets free expression apart from a general liberty claim to choose a way of life. It is suggested that when deciding what should count as properly offensive for the purpose of exercising state coercion, only a very narrow definition of offensive speech is compatible with the values underlying freedom of expression. Then, offensive speech is distinguished from hate speech. As the two are morally different, it is inappropriate to borrow arguments from the hate speech debate to justify restrictions on offensive speech.

scholarly journals Szabadság határokkal, avagy európai útmutató a szólásszabadság jogszerű gyakorlásához

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
László Vári
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Law ◽  
Fake News ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
New Challenges

Az online kommunikációs tér kínálta lehetőségekkel, illetve annak egyre terjedő használatával felértékelődött a vélemény és a kifejezés szabadságának jelentősége, a mindennapok szóhasználatával pedig a szólás- és sajtószabadság szerepe. Nemcsak azért, mert a mobil világ kiváló, eddig nem ismert lehetőségeket hordoz magában a szabadságjog gyakorlásához, érvényesüléséhez, hanem mert a digitális korban újabb, eddig ismeretlen vagy kevésbé jelentős problémák is felerősödnek. A félrevezető és álhírek, a profilfelfüggesztés, a kommenttörlés, a rágalmazás, és a gyűlöletbeszéd még sokáig lehetne sorolni azokat a problémákat, melyek egytől egyig a kifejezés szabadságának jogszerűtlen gyakorlatára vezethetők vissza. Mindezek nemcsak egyéni, de társadalmi szinten is komoly veszélyt jelentenek, így befolyásolva a demokratikus társadalmakat és azok fejlődését. Éppen ezért válik jelentőssé az a kérdés, hogy hogyan lehet a szólásszabadság sérelmére visszavezethető problémákat kiküszöbölni, és az említett kihívásokra megoldást találni. A következő oldalakon a nemzetközi és európai jogból, azok magyarázataiból és az európai joggyakorlatból kiolvasható válaszokat gyűjtjük össze, hogy rávilágítsunk a jogsértések okaira, és európai megoldásokat keressünk azok orvoslására. --- Liberty with limitations, a European guide to the rightful exercise of the freedom of expression In the digital age, in line with the opportunities of cyberspace and the increasing use of mobile communication the importance of freedom of expression, the so-called free speech and freedom of the press have become more salient. Not only because they carry new opportunities for the practice and the prevalence of freedom, but because new challenges emerge alongside new opportunities. Misleading and fake news, profile suspensions, deleted comments, defamation, hate speech and many other problems, can all stem from the violation of the freedom of opinion and expression. These violations of freedom carry dangers both at an individual and sociatal level, thus influencing the everyday life of democratic societies and their development. Therefore, the question becomes crucial: how can we fix these problems and provide the best solution to these challenges. In the following we will explore international and European law, their explanations and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in order to find European explanations behind the reasons for violations, as well as legal solutions for exercising freedom of expression. Keywords: freedom of expression, international and regional freedom of expression law, European case-law, 3rd party liability, public watchdogs, misleading and fake news, defamation, hate speech, copyright

HUMANISTIC ASPECTS IN THE LANGUAGE PLANING POLICIES

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 2335-2338
Author(s):  
Agim Poshka
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Speaking ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Impact

It is believed that language policies aim to organize, encourage but sometimes even discourage language rights. Although slowly states in the Balkans started to believe that language rights could be used as a tool for creation of social cohesion, there is one aspect of language practice that is ignored but seems to cause quite negative impact, and that is hate speech. This paper investigated modes in which this dangerous tool is harming inter-ethnic and inter-cultural stability in the region. It is a long term interest to the judicial system of every country to limit the negative impact that hate speech has to certain fragile societies. The study also reflects on particular laws that aim to expand the span of freedom of speech and minimize the presence of hate speech in public life. This derogatory behavior can ultimately produce hatred and in some cases even human sacrifices. A definition that is often available in literature regarding hate speech is that “hate speech is an abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation”. In other words the basic concept of using language for solely communicational purpose has switched to use language to insult, intimidate, or threaten a group or an individual and is primarily based on a particular characteristic or disability. In its violent history, Europe has witnessed a considerable number of cases of human rights violations, and recent ones often get the “prefix” of hate speech. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and few societies have already designed their legal framework in order to address the issue The conditions have become even more dramatic with the introduction of social media. There are thousands of pages and blogs in which hate speech is expressed publicly. In an article published by the legaldictionary.net it states that with the advent of social media, the issue of offensive and threatening speech has become a global problem”. There are many cases in which hate speech is used as an argument of free speech. The process becomes even more challenging when the officials are expected to draw a line between where free speech ends and hate speech begins. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and as a result few societies have designed legal framework in order to address the issue and this study provides different methods and approaches are considered in the process. The study also cites a number of international cases which aim to create a greater picture of these deleterious phenomena and although there are many elements of the ethical and moral dilemma in regards to the freedom of expression it is important that we are aware of the responsibility and the impact we have when using hate speech in any public appearances.

HUMANISTIC ASPECTS IN THE LANGUAGE PLANING POLICIES

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 2335-2338
Author(s):  
Agim Poshka
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Speaking ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Impact

It is believed that language policies aim to organize, encourage but sometimes even discourage language rights. Although slowly states in the Balkans started to believe that language rights could be used as a tool for creation of social cohesion, there is one aspect of language practice that is ignored but seems to cause quite negative impact, and that is hate speech. This paper investigated modes in which this dangerous tool is harming inter-ethnic and inter-cultural stability in the region. It is a long term interest to the judicial system of every country to limit the negative impact that hate speech has to certain fragile societies. The study also reflects on particular laws that aim to expand the span of freedom of speech and minimize the presence of hate speech in public life. This derogatory behavior can ultimately produce hatred and in some cases even human sacrifices. A definition that is often available in literature regarding hate speech is that “hate speech is an abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation”. In other words the basic concept of using language for solely communicational purpose has switched to use language to insult, intimidate, or threaten a group or an individual and is primarily based on a particular characteristic or disability. In its violent history, Europe has witnessed a considerable number of cases of human rights violations, and recent ones often get the “prefix” of hate speech. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and few societies have already designed their legal framework in order to address the issue The conditions have become even more dramatic with the introduction of social media. There are thousands of pages and blogs in which hate speech is expressed publicly. In an article published by the legaldictionary.net it states that with the advent of social media, the issue of offensive and threatening speech has become a global problem”. There are many cases in which hate speech is used as an argument of free speech. The process becomes even more challenging when the officials are expected to draw a line between where free speech ends and hate speech begins. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and as a result few societies have designed legal framework in order to address the issue and this study provides different methods and approaches are considered in the process. The study also cites a number of international cases which aim to create a greater picture of these deleterious phenomena and although there are many elements of the ethical and moral dilemma in regards to the freedom of expression it is important that we are aware of the responsibility and the impact we have when using hate speech in any public appearances.

Freedom of Speech

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Riley
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Type A ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Type B ◽  
Public Expression ◽  
Laissez Faire ◽  
The Right

John Stuart Mill is a liberal icon, widely praised in particular for his stirring defense of freedom of speech. A neo-Millian theory of free speech is outlined and contrasted in important respects with what Frederick Schauer calls “the free speech ideology” that surrounds the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and with Schauer’s own “pre-legal” theory of free speech. Mill cannot reasonably be interpreted to defend free speech absolutism if speech is understood broadly to include all expressive conduct. Rather, he is best interpreted as defending an expedient policy of laissez-faire with exceptions, where four types of expression are distinguished, three of which (labeled Types B, C, and D) are public or other-regarding, whereas the fourth (labeled Type A) is private or self-regarding. Types C and D expression are unjust and ought to be suppressed by law and public stigma. They deserve no protection from coercive interference: they are justified exceptions to the policy of letting speakers alone. Consistently with this, a moral right to freedom of speech gives absolute protection to Type B public expression, which is “almost” self-regarding. Type A private expression also receives absolute protection, but it is truly self-regarding conduct and therefore covered by the moral right of absolute self-regarding liberty identified by Mill in On Liberty. There is no need for a distinct right of freedom of expression with respect to self-regarding speech. Strictly speaking, then, an expedient laissez-faire policy for public expression leaves the full protection of freedom of private expression to the right of self-regarding liberty.An important application of the neo-Millian theory relates to an unjust form of hate speech that may be described as group libel. By creating, or threatening to create, a social atmosphere in which a targeted group is forced to live with a maliciously false public identity of criminality or subhumanity, such a group libel creates, or significantly risks creating, social conditions in which all individuals associated with the group must give up their liberties of self-regarding conduct and of Type B expression to avoid conflict with prejudiced and belligerent members of society, even though the libel itself does not directly threaten any assignable individual with harm or accuse him or her of any wrongdoing of his or her own. This Millian perspective bolsters arguments such as those offered by Jeremy Waldron for suppressing group libels. America is an outlier among advanced civil societies with respect to the regulation of such unjust hate speech, and its “free speech ideology” ought to be suitably reformed so that group libels are prevented or punished as immoral and unconstitutional.

Freedom of expression in multicultural societies: Political cartooning in Europe in the modern and postmodern eras

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-189
Author(s):  
Nives Rumenjak
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Clash Of Civilizations ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
Political Cartooning

Abstract At the intersection of modern cultural and political history, security studies and debates about freedom of expression and international human-rights law, this article aims to contribute to a better understanding of political cartooning and its implications in multicultural societies of Europe, which have shifted in a geographical, cultural, normative, communicational, political and many other respects through the last two centuries. Through comparison of the Serbian cartoons from late nineteenth-century Croatia and the recent Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, the article reveals that both modern and postmodern European cartoons have been centred around equally discriminatory narratives: a 'clash of civilizations' and 'racialization of religion'. Since open racial stereotyping in cartoons became illegal in the postmodern international regulations, traditional discriminatory practices of cartooning have shifted towards subtle, 'liquid' racism. This decodes some of the twelve Danish cartoons as ambiguous strategies of racialization of Muslim immigrants in Europe (as 'terrorists' and 'others') but also as hate speech which is illegal in the European Union, and member states of the Council of Europe. The author concludes that the most current European and international regulations of hate speech, whether concerning offline media or online media, actually protect free speech. While a truly clear-cut regulation of liquid racism might remain problematic in Europe (and the world) due to the lack of a universally accepted definition of hate speech, neither strict legal regulations nor different definitions of hate speech could diminish the role of political cartooning as a viable free speech platform in the multicultural landscape of Europe. Ultimately, what diminishes its viability is the enduring lack of diversity in the creation of visual satire, which could and should reflect the multicultural reality of communities, politics and societies in Europe.

DANGEROUS EXPRESSIONS: THE ECHR, VIOLENCE AND FREE SPEECH

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Buyse
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Prevention Of Violence ◽  
European Court

AbstractHow should one balance the freedom of expression and the prevention of violence? This article delves into the grey zone between hate speech and incitement to violence by assessing the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in cases of allegedly dangerous speech. Rather than labelling this case law as simplistic, as some critics even within the Court have done, it is shown that the jurisprudence reveals cleavages within the Court on whether to adopt a more or less consequentialist approach on the links between speech and violence. Freedom of expression cases should preferably be assessed on the merits under Article 10 ECHR since this allows for a balancing of the various interests involved. The application of the abuse of rights clause of Article 17 ECHR is for that very reason undesirable, in addition to its inconsistent use by the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document