Law Commons^™

Coca-Cola Curses: Hate Speech In A Post-Colonial Context, Brittan Heller

Michigan Technology Law Review

Hate speech is a contextual phenomenon. What offends or inflames in one context may differ from what incites violence in a different time, place, and cultural landscape. Theories of hate speech, especially Susan Benesch’s concept of “dangerous speech” (hateful speech that incites violence), have focused on the factors that cut across these paradigms. However, the existing scholarship is narrowly focused on situations of mass violence or societal unrest in America or Europe.

This paper discusses how online hate speech may operate differently in a postcolonial context. While hate speech impacts all societies, the global South—Africa in particular—has been sorely understudied. …

Applying International Law To The Regulation Of Media Incited Genocide: Rwanda And Myanmar, Savannah Whittemore

Honors Theses

The goal of this thesis is to demonstrate the connection between word and action in relation to the media incited genocide. By employing the operational definitions of intent, incitement, genocide, and hate speech from legal texts such as the Genocide Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, this thesis shows that there is suitable jurisprudence on the crime of direct and public incitement to genocide with the legal bodies statute mirrors the language of the Genocide Convention. This in conjunction with the language gradient on the changing role of messages before and during genocide shows that regulation …

Finding Freedom For The Thoughts We Hate, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously defended tolerance as an indispensable constitutional value. He wrote: “[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Yet accepting that the Constitution protects the thought that we hate can be difficult, even during the best of times. And these are far from the best of times. Nuclear brinksmanship …

Hate Speech And Double Standards, Thomas M. Keck

Political Science - All Scholarship

Many European states ban the public expression of hateful speech directed at racial and religious minorities, and an increasing number do so for anti-gay speech as well. These laws have been subjected to a wide range of legal, philosophical, and empirical investigation, but this paper explores one potential cost that has not received much attention in the literature. Statutory bans on hate speech leave democratic societies with a Hobson’s choice. If those societies ban incitements of hatred against some vulnerable groups, they will inevitably face parallel demands for protection of other such groups. If they accede to those demands, they …

Fulfilling The U.S. Obligation To Prevent Exterminationism: A Comprehensive Approach To Regulating Hate Speech And Dismantling Systems Of Genocide., Sarah E. Ryan

Sarah E Ryan

No abstract provided.

Beyond Free Speech: Novel Approaches To Hate On The Internet In The United States, Jessica S. Henry

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

Hate on the Internet presents a unique problem in the United States. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech, even that which is hateful and offensive. Although the First Amendment is not without limitation and, indeed, although there have been a small number of successful prosecutions of individuals who disseminated hate speech over the Internet, web-based hate continues to receive broad First Amendment protections. Some non-governmental organizations in the United States, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center, have adopted innovative approaches to hate on the Internet. For instance, the ADL tracks and monitors …

Hate Speech, C. Edwin Baker

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper describes the rationale that a full protection theory of free speech, a theory based on respect for individual autonomy, would give for protecting hate speech. The paper then notes that such a rationale will be unpersuasive to many (including this author) if the harms associated with a failure to outlaw hate speech are as great as often suggested – most dramatically, if the failure to prohibit makes a substantial contribution to the occurrence of serious racial/ethnic violence or genocide. The article then attempts to outline what empirical evidence would be needed to support this conclusion and gives reasons …