Abstract

This article examines the relationship between laws regulating racial vilification and arguments for freedom of speech. Commonly, it is argued that racial vilification laws are inconsistent with free speech. This article argues that such laws are consistent with and, indeed, supported by arguments commonly made in favour of free speech.

Highlights

  • This article examines the relationship between laws regulating racial vilification and arguments for freedom of speech.[1]

  • Rather than examining the specific terms and scope of any particular racial vilification law, this article examines the interaction between the purposes of racial vilification laws, the harms which such laws seek to prevent, and arguments made in support of free speech

  • This article does not seek to justify any of these laws in their particular details. It examines the purposes of racial vilification laws, the harms which such laws seek to prevent, and the interaction between these considerations and arguments commonly made in support of free speech

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

This article examines the relationship between laws regulating racial vilification and arguments for freedom of speech.[1]. Terms or scope of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) pt IIA (‘RDA’),[5] or the equivalent laws of any other country.[6] Rather than examining the specific terms and scope of any particular racial vilification law, this article examines the interaction between the purposes of racial vilification laws, the harms which such laws seek to prevent, and arguments made in support of free speech. Arguments made by different authors are examined, and the underlying assumptions and values on which these arguments are based will be analysed.[7] In relation to each type of free speech argument, this article determines whether it might, support racial vilification laws.[8]. In relation to arguments based on the value of inquiry, racial vilification does not assist the search for truth, and distorts the marketplace of ideas

THE NATURE AND PURPOSES OF RACIAL VILIFICATION LAWS
THE NATURE OF FREE SPEECH
THREE TYPES OF ARGUMENTS FOR FREE SPEECH
A Political Arguments for Free Speech
Meiklejohn’s Account of Free Speech
A Rejoinder to Meiklejohn
Are Racial Vilification Laws Inconsistent with Democratic Values?
B Arguments Based on Dignity and Autonomy
John Stuart Mill and the Personal Importance of Free Speech
The Modern Debate
The Actual Harms of Hate Speech
Harm and Regulation of Hate Speech
Serious Offence and the Regulation of Hate Speech
Dignity and the Regulation of Hate Speech
C The Value of Inquiry
John Stuart Mill and the Importance of Open Discussion
Adoption of Mill’s Ideas into American Free Speech Doctrine
The Value of Inquiry Supports Regulation of Racial Vilification
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.