Hate Speech Laws Research Articles

Hate-Speech Bans are at Odds with Central Principles of Liberalism

AbstractIn line with my 2021 book Freedom of Expression as Self-Restraint – albeit in a much shorter compass – this essay will argue against the moral defensibility of hate-speech laws like those in the United Kingdom and Canada and the Antipodes and most countries of western Europe. Such laws contravene the moral principle of freedom of expression, and therefore contravene one of the central precepts of liberal democracy. Under that principle, a necessary condition for the moral permissibility of any law that proscribes some type or instance of communicative activity is that the activity in question is constitutive of serious communication-independent wrongdoing. Given the centrality of the notion of communication-independent wrongdoing to the principle of freedom of expression, we should begin here with an explication of that notion.

The Impact of Hate Speech Regulations on Freedom of Expression an Indonesian Legal Perspective

This paper explores the impact of hate speech regulation on freedom of expression in Indonesia from a juridical perspective. The study focuses on the legal framework, including the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) and the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), both of which are central to the regulation of hate speech. Through an analysis of key statutes, court rulings, and case studies, this paper highlights the tension between protecting public order and safeguarding free speech. The findings reveal that vague legal definitions and broad enforcement of hate speech laws have led to selective prosecution, often targeting political dissent and criticism. These issues raise concerns about the erosion of democratic rights and the potential misuse of hate speech laws for political purposes. Recommendations are provided to clarify legal definitions, ensure proportionality in enforcement, and prevent the misuse of these laws in a manner that balances the protection of social harmony with the preservation of freedom of expression.

“To attack the rights of one man is to attack the rights of everyone”: Conservative Rights Talk and Canada’s First Hate Speech Laws

ABSTRACT In 1970, the Canadian government amended the Criminal Code to include the nation’s first provisions banning hate propaganda. This article examines the parliamentary debates over these provisions, from their introduction to their adoption, to assess how members of the two mainstream political right and right-of-center parties responded to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. It considers what this response—and the way in which it was articulated—reveals about how self-identified conservatives understood rights and freedoms, and how they conceived of the role of the state in securing these rights and freedoms in the context of Canada’s expanding legislative human rights framework. I argue that these debates over hate speech are illustrative of a coherent form of conservative rights-talk in 1960s Canada, one that varied from, and in some respects was in opposition to, a more dominant liberal discourse of rights.

Hate Hurts: Qwelane and the Lingering Obscurity in South Africa’s Hate Speech Law

Hate Hurts: <i>Qwelane</i> and the Lingering Obscurity in South Africa’s Hate Speech Law

Building Tolerance into Hate Speech Laws

UN monitoring bodies frequently pose questions about Australia’s compliance with the hate speech mandates of key UN conventions. Recently, the Human Rights Committee enquired about inconsistencies across Australian state and territory anti-vilification legislation, as raising issues under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’). This article examines the implications of those inconsistencies, both legal and practical, for Australia’s ICCPR compliance. At a time when hate speech is not abating but becoming a common feature of an increasingly fragmented society, this article asks the following questions: Are the settings for anti-vilification legislation at state and territory levels appropriate in the balance achieved between applicable human rights? Can Australian state and territory legislation be better targeted to distinguish between prohibited and preserved free speech? Do Australian state and territory laws conform to the requirements of the ICCPR and other UN instruments? The article concludes that the inconsistencies are problematic and lead to public uncertainty, exacerbated by the unpredictable application by some competent authorities. It proposes legislative solutions that focus less on the scope of prohibition (which is dependent on terminology lacking definitional precision) and more on bringing clarity to the scope of excluded conduct, in conformity with ICCPR demands protecting freedom of expression.

CHALLENGES IN ENFORCING HATE SPEECH LAWS IN INDONESIAN POLITICS

Enforcing hate speech laws in Indonesian politics has posed significant challenges in the past. These challenges have impeded the effective implementation of legal measures designed to address hate speech and ensure a fair and inclusive political environment. One of the key challenges was the need for a clear and comprehensive legal framework. Historically, hate speech laws in Indonesia were criticized for being vague and open to interpretation, leading to inconsistent application and potential bias in enforcement. The absence of specific guidelines and criteria for identifying hate speech hindered the prosecution process. Political pressures and biases also posed significant obstacles to enforcing hate speech laws. The influence of political affiliations and interests often interfered with objective decision-making, leading to selective enforcement or leniency based on political considerations. This compromised the impartiality and independence of the enforcement process. Moreover, limited capacity and training among law enforcement agencies and judicial institutions created further hurdles. There needs to be more understanding of hate speech issues, lack of expertise in investigating and prosecuting such cases, and inadequate resources hampering the effective implementation of hate speech laws. These challenges in enforcing hate speech laws in Indonesian politics have hindered the protection of fundamental rights, fostered polarization, and undermined the inclusive nature of the political discourse. Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive legal reforms, capacity building for law enforcement and judicial institutions, and strategies that effectively tackle hate speech in the digital realm.

What is Hate Speech? The Case for a Corpus Approach

Contemporary public discourse is saturated with speech that vilifies and incites hatred or violence against vulnerable groups. The term “hate speech” has emerged in legal circles and in ordinary language to refer to these communicative acts. But legal theorists and philosophers disagree over how to define this term. This paper makes the case for, and subsequently develops, the first corpus-based analysis of the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” We begin by demonstrating that key interpretive and moral disputes surrounding hate speech laws—in particular, surrounding their compatibility with the rule of law, democracy, and free speech—depend crucially on the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” Next, we argue, drawing on recent developments in legal philosophy, that corpus linguistics constitutes a distinctively promising tool for ascertaining the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” Finally, we offer a proof of concept, by outlining, and analyzing the interpretive and moral implications of, the first such study.

HATE SPEECH - LEGAL, POLITICAL, CULTURAL ASPECTS. WORLD EXPERIENCE IN LEGAL REGULATION

The article analyzes the topic of «hate speech», its legal, political, cultural aspects, as well as the world experience of its regulation. The article analyzes the growth of «hate speech» on social media and during the COVID-19 period. Considering the existing experience of «hate speech law», it is emphasized that paradoxes and contradictions between freedom of expression and restrictions on hate speech impede the achievement of positive results in this area. Legal norms are necessary to improve the general perception of the language of hatred, to improve the existing standards of combating the language of hatred, and to adopt measures against crimes committed on the basis of hatred.

Should Democracies Ban Hate Speech? Hate Speech Laws and Counterspeech

Should Democracies Ban Hate Speech? Hate Speech Laws and Counterspeech

Universities and other Institutions – not Hate Speech Laws – are a threat to Freedom of Political Speech

One of the strongest arguments against hate speech legislation is the so-called Argument from Political Speech. This argument problematizes the restrictions that might be placed on political opinions or political critique when these opinions are expressed in a way which can be interpreted as ‘hateful’ towards minority groups. One of the strongest free speech scholars opposing hate speech legislation is Ronald Dworkin, who stresses that having restrictions on hate speech is, in fact, illegitimate in a liberal democracy. The right to express oneself freely concerning any political decision is, according to Dworkin, a core democratic principle; it is what self-governance – and hence liberal democracies – are built upon. Dworkin and many other free speech scholars based in the United States see hate speech legislation as a threat to expressing oneself freely and critically. I argue that Dworkin and other US-based free speech scholars tend to overlook actual hate speech legislation in countries where such laws have been implemented and have functioned for decades. Furthermore, I argue that the real threat against political speech lies not in hate speech legislation but rather outside of the law, namely, in private institutions such as universities and museums. Restrictions on political speech in various societal circumstances have been on the rise over the last decades – first and foremost in the US. I analyse why these restrictions on political speech are more widespread in the only Western country without laws against hate speech than they are in countries with implemented hate speech laws. Keywords: political speech, hate speech, hate speech legislation, private institu-tions, universities, USA

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE WESTERN MEDIA: GEERT WILDER’S MOHAMMAD CARTOON CONTROVERSY IN HOLLAND’S HATE SPEECH PROVISIONS

“Islamophobia” in the western world is not only considered as a fear and disliking towards Muslims but also a concept that involves the complete erasure of Muslims by western society. The international media is considered a major collaborator in keeping Islamophobia the most prevalent issue in the western culture by directly attacking Muslim sentiments through state-based hate speeches or indirectly by projecting only the negative news of Muslims. Holland’s Mohammad Cartoon Competition once again processed a continuing conflict between the right of free speech and hate speech. The aim of this article is to analyse the Muhammad Cartoon Competition 2018 and Geert Wilders comments in the light of Holland’s hate speech provisions. The Holland cartoon contest will also be examined in light of past examples of racial and religious discrimination in Holland’s media against Islam in the name of free speech. The study intends to answer whether the Mohammad Cartoon Contest organized by Geert Wilders and his comments constitute hate speech according to the Dutch penal codes of Article 137c and 137d? The study uses the Methodology of Content analysis and an analysis of the Mohammad Cartoon Contest, Geert Wilder’s comments regarding it were made. In addition, a comparative analysis of the past cases of these legal violations in Holland was made in the study to draw up the results. Findings of the analysis suggest that most of the Geert Wilders comments and his organized cartoon contest qualify as hate speech according to all the clauses of article 137c and 137d of hate speech. However, keeping in consideration the previous trials against Geert Wilders and him not being convicted renders Dutch hate speech laws questionable. This brings us to conclude that there is a dire need to clarify and amend Holland’s hate speech laws. Keywords: Islamophobia, caricatures, international media, hate speech, freedom of speech, Muslims, Holland.

Toothless Rhetoric or Strategic Polemic? A Textual and Contextual Analysis of Japan's Hate Speech Law.

In May, 2016 the Diet passed a law on the “Promotion of efforts to eliminate unfair discriminatory speech and behaviour against people originating from outside Japan”, widely referred to as ヘイトスピーチ法 (Heito Supiichi Hō /Hate Speech Law). For some residents of Japan it had been a long time coming. Without any laws specifically prohibiting racially discriminatory speech or writing, aggrieved parties had hitherto been forced to resort to indirect lines of protection. In 1999, for example, a Brazilian national ejected from a jewelry shop displaying a poster saying “No foreigners allowed” obtained a favourable ruling citing Japan’s ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and in 2013 an injunction for defamation and obstruction of business was granted on behalf of a school for children of North Korean descent repeatedly subjected to provocative demonstrations. But others questioned the need to reinforce limits on freedom of expression even in the face of aggressive taunts, with some claiming that incidents of racial discrimination in Japan lacked the historical, entrenched and violent dimensions that had prompted hate speech laws in Europe and elsewhere. When the text of the proposed law became public there was also debate about its utility as such an abstract measure seemed inapplicable to many potential victims and lacked punitive sanctions. Against this criticism it could be argued that the law went about as far as the government could expect to go if it were to get it passed; that it appears to be curtailing a particularly aggressive form of hate speech; and that it has ushered in a number of more specific initiatives, especially at local level. This study will begin with the 2016 text itself, drawing on the semiotic framework of Systemic Functional Grammar to explore how it prioritises general principles over specific regulations. This textual analysis will be followed by a contextual account of why the Law was constructed as it was, how it has influenced awareness of hate speech, and where it fits in with an existing genre of non-coercive legislation in Japan.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11196-022-09883-9.

Penegakan Hukum oleh Ditreskrimsus Polda Sumatera Utara terhadap Ujaran Kebencian Menggunakan Sarana Media Sosial

Law enforcement is a very important thing in the process of developing the Indonesian nation, where without law enforcement development will experience obstacles in its implementation, and the development process must be pursued to run regularly and sustainably (sustainable development) in every sector and across sectors. so that it can achieve its goal of providing protection and social welfare for all Indonesian people. The number of people in Indonesia is increasing every year. The research method used in this research is empirical juridical. The results showed that the investigators of the Ditreskrimsus Polda of North Sumatra determined the status of the reported party as a suspect in the enforcement of the hate speech law after clear evidence was available. The obstacles faced by the Ditkrimsus Investigators of the North Sumatra Police in enforcing the law against hate speech using social media are: the perpetrators are public figures, are considered to curb freedom of opinion, Simcar can be used without a registration process, lack of public awareness of the prohibition of spreading hate speech, and the circulation of fake accounts, a criminal policy that can be done to prevent hate speech crimes using social media is to make a policy so that all Simcars can only be used after going through the registration process and tighten the requirements for creating social media accounts to prevent fake account.

Review of Alexander Brown and Adriana Sinclair, The Politics of Hate Speech Laws (New York: Routledge, 2019)

Review of Alexander Brown and Adriana Sinclair, The Politics of Hate Speech Laws (New York: Routledge, 2019)

Confronting the Lies That Protect Racist Hate Speech: Towards Honest Hate Speech Laws in New Zealand and the United States

This Article provides a comparative critique of hate speech jurisprudence in New Zealand and the United States by building on insights from Critical Race Theory (CRT) scholars. &nbsp;My main argument is that neither of these liberal democracies protect the right to freedom of expression/speech as they claim, but in fact dishonestly protect a right to “freedom of expression of racism” or “freedom of racist speech.” &nbsp;They do this by telling lies that inflate the value of free expression/speech and diminish and dismiss the harms that hate speech inflicts on marginalized groups. &nbsp;To move towards honest hate speech laws in both jurisdictions, I propose a communications strategy that seeks to reframe hate speech from a free speech issue to a public health issue. &nbsp;This is in order to push for reforms that will enable the courts to better protect people of color from the physical, mental, psychological or spiritual harms of racist hate speech.

Hate Speech against Dalits on Social Media: Would a Penny Sparrow be Prosecuted in India for Online Hate Speech?

This article analyzes the Indian hate speech law from the perspective of social media. Recent research shows extensive use of caste-based hate speech on Facebook, including derogatory references to caste-based occupations such as manual scavenging. This article attempts to examine whether the Scheduled castes / Scheduled Tribes (SC / ST) Prevention of Atrocities Act is equipped to deal with online hate speech against Dalits. The jurisprudence around the applicability of Atrocities Act to caste-based hate speech has been analyzed. After the said analysis, the applicability of ‘International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)’ to caste- based discrimination has been studied. Thereafter, the standard of proof for prosecuting hate speech under Indian domestic law has been compared with ICERD to analyze whether Indian domestic law is in compliance with international standards. The article further analyzes whether caste-based hate speech ought to be regulated only when there is incitement to violence or hatred, or it can also be regulated when it violates the right to dignity of Dalits. At the same time, the article also briefly examines whether such prosecution would be in violation of global free-speech standards.

Administrative Measures Against Far-Right Protesters: An Example of Japan’s Social Control

Abstract Japan’s pre-emptive approach to far-right demonstrations has had a significant impact. Far-right street protests accompanied by hate speech have been rapidly decreasing, although Japan has not introduced penalties. Why did the Japanese approach have such an effect? While the regulation of hate speech in Japan has been discussed mainly in legal studies, Japan’s use of administrative measures against hate speech has not been emphasized. Focusing on the implementation of the 2016 Hate Speech Law, this article examines administrative measures against far-right protestors as an example of Japan’s ‘soft’ approach to social control: not directly banning but discouraging social activities that are deemed harmful to social harmony. These measures have a pre-emptive character and are implemented based on a prior consensus between local officials and far-right activists about appropriate ways to use public spaces and possible expressions. This article also shows that Japan’s treatment of both far-right protesters and counterdemonstrators is guided by the harmony-related concept of kenka ryōseibai, which imposes punishment on both parties in a private quarrel, whether right or wrong. Japan’s approach to far-right protests thereby differs from the conventional American and European approaches in terms of both forms of regulation and central values.

Fighting Hate with Speech Law: Media and German Visions of Democracy

ABSTRACT In Germany, far-right groups have revived Nazi terminology like Lügenpresse (lying press) or Systempresse (system press) to decry the media today. German politicians, journalists, and the public have turned to numerous methods to try to combat the reinsertion of Nazi language into everyday German life. One key method is the law. Prior to the 2017 German election, the German parliament swiftly passed the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (Network Enforcement Law, NetzDG for short). While English-language press has often called this act a hate speech law, it actually enforces 22 statutes of extant German speech law online. Spearheaded by the SPD-led Justice Ministry, NetzDG represented the most public effort by the German government to push back against the AfD, the far right, and the rise of hate speech in Germany. NetzDG attracted huge global attention as the first major law to fine American-based social media companies for not adhering to national statutes. This article examines why German politicians turned to law as a way to combat the rise of the far right. I explore how NetzDG represented German political understandings of the relationship between freedom of expression and democracy and argue that NetzDG followed a longer historical pattern of German attempts to use media law to raise Germany's profile on the international stage. The article examines the irony that NetzDG was meant to defend democracy in Germany, but may have unintentionally undermined it elsewhere, as authoritarian regimes like Russia seized upon the law to justify their own curtailments of free expression. Finally, I explain the difficulties of measuring whether NetzDG has achieved its goals and showcase a few other approaches to the problems of information in democracies.

The Rise of Sectarianism: An Ethnography of Religious Intolerance in Southern Punjab

Pakistan has been experiencing a sharp resurgence in sectarian violence. The upsurge of sectarian loathing can be traced to the emergence of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in the mid-2000s and their coalition with militant sectarian organizations. The consequence of sectarian schism has engendered horrific fallouts such as target killings, bomb blasts, accusations of heresy and misuse of blasphemy laws against the followers of other sects. The current multi-sited ethnographic study was conducted in Karor Lal Eason – a poverty stricken region of Southern Punjab which is considered as a hub of sectarian abhorrence. This article explores the grassroots structure of sectarianism while presenting the forms and expressions highlighting the sectarian repugnance. While employing the methodological triangulation, the participant observation was conducted in the community at numerous places such as homes, shrines, female madrasahs and schools. Also, 30 in-depth interviews were conducted to grasp the native perspectives. The sample was selected using purposive sampling including both genders with varied sectarian, socio-economic and educational backgrounds. The current research suggests that sectarian-based division, hate literature, hate speech and allegations of blasphemy laws are the prominent symbols of sectarian schism in Southern Punjab.

A Forensic Interpretation of Hateful Micro-Speech Acts and Performative Modality in Facebook and Twitter during 2017 Election-Kenya

The increasing shift of human activities to online spaces in Kenya has resulted in the new behaviours among internet consumers. One such behaviour is the growing online public journalism phenomenon amid legal and regulatory gaps permeating expression of online hate speech rhetoric disguised as ‘politically correct talk’ which often goes unquestioned despite its injurious force and the potential to precipitate physical violence in the long run. To judge content as hateful, Kenya’s judicial processes rely the establishment of speech intention to hurt a legally protected entity. However, hate speech law enforcers lack skill and capacity to accurately determine the pragmatic force of hateful language. This article, which is a part of broad study that examined the discursive construction of online hate rhetoric, examines the injurious potential of online micro-speech acts and performative modality of selected Facebook posts and tweets constituting the day-to-day communicative practices online during the 2017 general election in Kenya. Working within forensic-based Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA) framework, we analyse a purposive sample of 160 posts; FB (120) and Twitter (40) collected through online observation of Facebook groups and hashtags trending in Kenya between July and November 2017. The findings show how micro-speech acts and performative modality worked in service of aggressive ideology in the form of overt and covert appeals for collective prejudice against marked ethno-political out-groups. These insights are relevant for policy makers such as NCIC, KHR and CAK as well as the hate speech law enforcers especially National Police Service and prosecutors in understanding how certain commonsensical day to day online communicative practices yield pragmatic potential to propagate ideologically rooted culture of hate and violence in multi-ethnic cultural contexts such as Kenya.