United States: Exceptional Freedoms, Fabricated Fears

Hate Spin ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cherian George
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
High Degree

The United States has exceptionally strong Constitutional protections for free speech, but also for religious freedom. This chapter considers how this unique legal framework affects hate spin in the country. It finds that although hate speech can be expressed with a high degree of impunity, strong anti-discrimination laws limit the harms caused by such speech. Hate spin can, nonetheless, succeed in fostering fear and cultivating prejudice against minorities. The chapter examines how a network of anti-Muslim activists have used hate spin to campaign against mosque building, to oppose multi-cultural textbooks, and to introduce legislation protecting states from the fabricated threat of encroaching Muslim law. Beyond their stated goals, which may be frustrated by courts, these campaigns often have the symbolic purpose of spreading Islamophobia.

From Honor to Dignity: Criminal Libel, Press Freedom, and Racist Speech in Brazil and the United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Hoffman French
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
World War ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Human Rights Organizations ◽  
The U.S

Reports on violence against journalists in Brazil have captured the concern of international human rights organizations. This article discusses a case involving another such concern: the use of criminal defamation laws in Brazil to punish journalists for criticizing public officials. At the same time, Brazilian media sources regularly report on crimes of racism, which most often involve derogatory name-calling and hate speech. By examining the intersection of these apparently contradictory concerns, this article sheds new light on speech rights in Brazil and the United States and argues that a comparative perspective is crucial to contextualizing and harmonizing free speech and its limitations under modern democratic constitutions. By considering the infusion of traditional notions of honor and status with post-World War II views of dignity, this article argues for a comparative consideration of how best to combat racism and whether hate speech regulation in the U.S. should be reconsidered. As such, the type of law often used to protect the powerful in Brazil could come to be used to protect the vulnerable in the United States and opens the possibility that the irony of free speech could become more than just a scholarly debate.

How Constitutional Rights Matter

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Chilton ◽  
Mila Versteeg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
The Government

How Constitutional Rights Matter explores whether constitutionalizing rights improves respect for those rights in practice. Drawing on global statistical analyses, case studies in Colombia, Myanmar, Poland, Russia, and Tunisia, and survey experiments in Turkey and the United States, this book advances three claims. First, enshrining rights in constitutions does not automatically ensure that those rights will be respected in practice. For rights to matter, rights violations need to be politically costly, which can happen when citizens mobilize against governments that encroach upon their rights. Successfully resisting the government, however, is no small feat for unconnected groups of citizens, and governments can often get away with constitutional rights violations. Second, some rights are more likely to be enforced than others. The reason is that some rights come with natural constituencies that are able to mobilize for their enforcement. This is the case for rights that are practiced by and within organizations, or “organizational rights,” such as the rights to religious freedom, unionize, and form political parties. Because religious groups, trade unions, and political parties are highly organized, they are well equipped to use the constitution to resist rights violations. Indeed, we find that these organizational rights are systematically associated with better practices. By contrast, rights that are practiced on an individual basis, such as free speech or the prohibition of torture, usually lack constituencies to enforce them, which makes it easier for governments to violate them. Third, even highly organized groups armed with the constitution face an uphill battle. Although such groups may be able to successfully resist repressive practices, they often can only delay governments that are truly dedicated to rights repression.

Unmasking Hate on Twitter

2019 ◽  
pp. 170-188
Author(s):  
Diana L. Ascher ◽  
Safiya Umoja Noble
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Vulnerable Populations ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Real Life ◽  
The United States ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Information Practice

Notions of free speech and expectations of speaker anonymity are instrumental aspects of online information practice in the United States, which manifest in greater protections for speakers of hate, while making targets of trolling and hate speech more vulnerable. In this chapter, we argue that corporate digital media platforms moderate and manage “free speech” in ways that disproportionately harm vulnerable populations. After being targets of racist and misogynist trolling ourselves, we investigated whether new modes of analysis could identify and strengthen the ties between the online personas of anonymous speakers of hate and their identities in real life, which may present opportunities for intervention to arrest online hate speech, or at least make speakers known to those who are targets or recipients of their speech.

Religion and Civil Liberties in the United States

2011 ◽  
pp. 274-288
Author(s):  
Tony Gill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Pluralism ◽  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civic Culture ◽  
Regulatory Issue ◽  
The World

In the contemporary era, and indeed ever since the Age of Enlightenment, the issue of civil liberties has taken an increasingly important role in the world of politics and economics. These civil liberties frequently include the rights to free speech, to petition government, to a fair trial before a jury of one's peers, to assemble peacefully, and prohibitions on the arbitrary seizure of property. Given that religious freedom is a crucial link in the economic explanation of religion, it behooves us to understand how this vital civil liberty produces religious pluralism and vibrancy, and how religious freedom develops within polities. This article frames religious freedom in the United States as a regulatory issue, proposes an economically rooted explanation for why politicians would deregulate the religious marketplace, and discusses why religious civil liberties are important for promoting spiritual vibrancy and a strong civic culture in society. It also examines the link between religious liberty and political economy.

scholarly journals Freedom of hate speech: The First Amendment, Snyder v Phelps and beyond

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Tara Schoeller-Burke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
Chilling Effect ◽  
International Experiences

<p>This paper assesses the United States position on the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment and questions whether, in light of the harm hate speech causes and the inconsistencies with free speech rationales, the position is justified. The most recent Supreme Court pronouncement on the issue is Snyder v Phelps which this paper utilizes as an exemplar of the state’s aversion to regulating speech on the basis of content. The ultimate thesis of this paper is that while hate speech is a complex issue, especially given the United States constitutional climate, complete lack of regulation leaves an appreciable harm without a remedy. The approach in the United States can no longer be justified in reliance on oft cited free speech rationales. Though international experiences in hate speech regulation have not been without their difficulties, it serves to illustrate the point that regulating some forms of speech on the basis of content does not necessarily result in the “chilling effect” that heavily concerns First Amendment scholars.</p>

scholarly journals Freedom of hate speech: The First Amendment, Snyder v Phelps and beyond

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Tara Schoeller-Burke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
Chilling Effect ◽  
International Experiences

<p>This paper assesses the United States position on the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment and questions whether, in light of the harm hate speech causes and the inconsistencies with free speech rationales, the position is justified. The most recent Supreme Court pronouncement on the issue is Snyder v Phelps which this paper utilizes as an exemplar of the state’s aversion to regulating speech on the basis of content. The ultimate thesis of this paper is that while hate speech is a complex issue, especially given the United States constitutional climate, complete lack of regulation leaves an appreciable harm without a remedy. The approach in the United States can no longer be justified in reliance on oft cited free speech rationales. Though international experiences in hate speech regulation have not been without their difficulties, it serves to illustrate the point that regulating some forms of speech on the basis of content does not necessarily result in the “chilling effect” that heavily concerns First Amendment scholars.</p>

Patient Autonomy, Capacity, and Consent

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Donnelly ◽  
Jessica Berg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
National Standard ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Law And Legislation

This chapter explores a number of key issues: the role of competence and capacity, advance directives, and decisions made for others. It analyses the ways these are treated in the United States and in selected European jurisdictions. National-level capacity legislation and human rights norms play a central role in Europe, which means that healthcare decisions in situations of impaired capacity operate in accordance with a national standard. In the United States, the legal framework is more state-based (rather than federal), and the courts have played a significant role, with both common law and legislation varying considerably across jurisdictions. Despite these differences, this chapter identifies some similar legal principles which have developed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document