scholarly journals Hate speech and holocaust denial: The prohibition of false historical discourse in modern society

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Tessa McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Historical Discourse ◽  
Symbolic Function ◽  
Holocaust Denial ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Upper Level

<p>The existence and magnitude of the largest genocide of the twentieth century, the Holocaust, are now being denied by individuals worldwide. This paper analyses the European legislation criminalising Holocaust denial from a freedom of expression perspective. The paper argues that Holocaust denial is inherently anti-Semitic, and is thus consistent with hate speech theory and the hate speech laws that have been enacted internationally in an attempt to remedy the harm hate speech can cause. The thesis of this paper is that the legislative restrictions on hate speech and Holocaust denial are justified from a free speech perspective on theoretical grounds. Such restrictions are a necessary prioritisation of human dignity and equality in the circumstances. Explicit Holocaust denial laws, while performing an essential symbolic function in European jurisdictions, are unnecessary in non-European states, as generic hate speech laws are sufficient to capture the harm caused by upper-level Holocaust denial.</p>

scholarly journals Hate speech and holocaust denial: The prohibition of false historical discourse in modern society

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Tessa McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Historical Discourse ◽  
Symbolic Function ◽  
Holocaust Denial ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Upper Level

<p>The existence and magnitude of the largest genocide of the twentieth century, the Holocaust, are now being denied by individuals worldwide. This paper analyses the European legislation criminalising Holocaust denial from a freedom of expression perspective. The paper argues that Holocaust denial is inherently anti-Semitic, and is thus consistent with hate speech theory and the hate speech laws that have been enacted internationally in an attempt to remedy the harm hate speech can cause. The thesis of this paper is that the legislative restrictions on hate speech and Holocaust denial are justified from a free speech perspective on theoretical grounds. Such restrictions are a necessary prioritisation of human dignity and equality in the circumstances. Explicit Holocaust denial laws, while performing an essential symbolic function in European jurisdictions, are unnecessary in non-European states, as generic hate speech laws are sufficient to capture the harm caused by upper-level Holocaust denial.</p>

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.

Censorship: Publish and Be Damned

2014 ◽  
Vol 150 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-40
Author(s):  
Peter Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Great Depression ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The Internet ◽  
New Realism ◽  
Christian Religion ◽  
The Great Depression ◽  
The Moment

State censorship in Australia has been rare, controversial and short-lived. There was almost none in the liberal nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the two world wars, the Great Depression and the new age of terrorism led to more determined, if comparatively temporary, attempts to censor publications that advocated sedition or violence. Moral censorship of obscenity was also rare in the nineteenth century, but enjoyed an ‘heroic’ period following the arrival of a new realism in literature and the age of lurid comic books. The internet has made such censorship almost totally ineffective. Blaspheming the Christian religion is no longer treated as a punishable offence, although attacking Islam may still sometimes be deemed actionable in law. The advent of multiculturalism has encouraged legislation to restrict free speech deemed to be ‘hate speech’, but its application has been episodic, unpopular and ineffective. The contest between writers demanding freedom and censors demanding standards is unending. But at the moment, the balance favours writers.

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

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document