Law Commons^™

The Anti-Human Rights Machine: Digital Authoritarianism And The Global Assault On Human Rights, Richard Ashby Wilson

Faculty Articles and Papers

Across the world, governments and state-aligned actors increasingly target human rights defenders online using techniques such as surveillance, censorship, harassment, and incitement, which together have been termed “digital authoritarianism.” We currently know little about the concrete effects on human rights defenders of digital authoritarianism as researchers have focused primarily on hate speech targeting religious, national, and ethnic minority groups. This article analyzes the effects of digital authoritarianism in two countries with among the highest rates of killings of human rights defenders in the world; Colombia and Guatemala. Anti-human rights speech in these countries portrays defenders as Marxist terrorists who are …

Freedom Of Speech At Ursinus College, Benjamin Henwood

Business and Economics Summer Fellows

Freedom of speech is a hot topic issue on many college campuses across the United States. My research project’s goal is to find out how our community at Ursinus College feels about freedom of speech. My project is going to explore how well Ursinus holds itself to its standards of free and open inquiry and how the students on campus feel about free and open inquiry. In order to understand how the community feels about free speech on our campus, we borrowed a survey from the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education and distributed it to roughly half of the …

Legal Vs. Non-Legal Responses To Hateful Expression, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

This chapter explains the understanding of all who seek to advance both free speech and equality anywhere in the world. It discusses supports the conclusions of many expert individuals and organizations around the world – that counterspeech and other non-censorial alternatives are much more likely than hate speech laws to prove effective in limiting hate speech and its possible harmful effects. Social scientists have confirmed that counterspeech by leaders in the pertinent community is especially persuasive in rebutting hateful speech and in countering its potential harmful effects. Speech that counters the potentially harmful impact of hate speech comprises a broad …

Extremist Speech, Compelled Conformity, And Censorship Creep, Danielle K. Citron

Faculty Scholarship

Silicon Valley has long been viewed as a full-throated champion of First Amendment values. The dominant online platforms, however, have recently adopted speech policies and processes that depart from the U.S. model. In an agreement with the European Commission, tech companies have pledged to respond to reports of hate speech within twenty-four hours, a hasty process that may trade valuable expression for speedy results. Plans have been announced for an industry database that will allow the same companies to share hashed images of banned extremist content for review and removal elsewhere.

These changes are less the result of voluntary market …

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 On Social Media, Amos N. Guiora, Elizabeth Park

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This essay expounds on Raphael Cohen-Almagor’s recent book, Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side, Moral and Social Responsibility on the Free Highway, and advocates placing narrow limitations on hate speech posted to social media websites. The Internet is a limitless platform for information and data sharing. It is, in addition, however, a low-cost, high-speed dissemination mechanism that facilitates the spreading of hate speech including violent and virtual threats. Indictment and prosecution for social media posts that transgress from opinion to inciteful hate speech are appropriate in limited circumstances. This article uses various real-world examples to explore when limitations on Internet-based hate …

Freedom Of Speech And The Criminal Law, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

Because the Free Speech Clause limits government power to enact penal statutes, it has a close relationship to American criminal law. This Article explores that relationship at a time when a fast-growing “decriminalization movement” has taken hold across the nation. At the heart of the Article is the idea that free speech law has developed in ways that have positioned the Supreme Court to use that law to impose significant new limits on the criminalization of speech. More particularly, this article claims that the Court has developed three distinct decision-making strategies for decriminalizing speech based on constitutional principles. The first …

An Opportunity Missed? A Constitutional Analysis Of Proposed Reforms To Tasmania's 'Hate Speech' Laws, Joshua Forrester, Augusto Zimmerman, Lorraine Finlay

Law Papers and Journal Articles

The Tasmanian government has proposed reforms to the ‘hate speech’ provisions in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas). However, these reforms are unsatisfactory. They do not address, and in fact compound, the constitutional invalidity of Tasmania’s ‘hate speech’ laws. In this article, we demonstrate that Tasmania’s present ‘hate speech’ laws, like equivalent provisions in other States and Territories, impermissibly infringe the implied freedom of political communication. We also demonstrate that certain proposed reforms further infringe the implied freedom of political communication. We will conclude by proposing elements of a constitutionally valid law against incitement to enmity.

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 …

A Few Thoughts On Free Speech Constitutionalism, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Cyberharassment And Workplace Law, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

There Are No Racists Here: The Rise Of Racial Extremism, When No One Is Racist, Jeannine Bell

Articles by Maurer Faculty

At first glance hate murders appear wholly anachronistic in post-racial America. This Article suggests otherwise. The Article begins by analyzing the periodic expansions of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the protection for racist expression in First Amendment doctrine. The Article then contextualizes the case law by providing evidence of how the First Amendment works on the ground in two separate areas — the enforcement of hate crime law and on university campuses that enact speech codes. In these areas, those using racist expression receive full protection for their beliefs. Part III describes social spaces — social media and employment where …

Globally Speaking - Honoring The Victims' Stories: Matsuda's Human Rights Praxis, Berta E. Hernández-Truyol

UF Law Faculty Publications

Globally speaking, international law and the vast majority of domestic legal systems strive to protect the right to freedom of expression. The United States’ First Amendment provides an early historical protection of speech—a safeguard now embraced around the world. The extent of this protection, however, varies among states.

The United States stands alone in excluding countervailing considerations of equality, dignitary, or privacy interests that would favor restrictions on speech. The gravamen of the argument supporting such American exceptionalism is that free expression is necessary in a democracy. Totalitarianism, the libertarian narrative goes, thrives on government control of information to the …

The Legal Challenges Of Diversity (Review Essay), Tanya K. Hernandez

Faculty Scholarship

Within the last year two excellent books, Mariana Valverde’s Everyday Law on the Street: City Governance In an Age of Diversity and Victoria Saker Woeste’s Henry Ford’s War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech, address how social anxieties about “diversity” surface in the development and enforcement of the law. While the two books focus on different eras and countries, they similarly illustrate the tensions in legal contexts that can result from the growth in diversity

Thirteenth Amendment Optimism, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Thirteenth Amendment optimism is the view that the Thirteenth Amendment may be used to reach doctrinal outcomes neither specifically intended by the Amendment's drafters nor obvious to contemporary audiences. In prominent legal scholarship, Thirteenth Amendment optimism has supported constitutional rights to abortion and health care and constitutional powers to prohibit hate speech and domestic violence, among other things. This Essay examines the practical utility of Thirteenth Amendment optimism in the face of dim prospects for adaption by courts. The Essay argues that Thirteenth Amendment optimism is most valuable, both historically and today, as a means of motivating the political process …

Intermediaries And Hate Speech: Fostering Digital Citizenship For Our Information Age, Danielle K. Citron, Helen Norton

Faculty Scholarship

No longer confined to isolated corners of the web, cyber hate now enjoys a major presence on popular social media sites. The Facebook group “Kill a Jew Day,” for instance, acquired thousands of friends within days of its formation, while YouTube has hosted videos with names like “How to Kill Beaners,” “Execute the Gays,” and “Murder Muslim Scum.” The mainstreaming of cyber hate has the troubling potential to shape public expectations of online discourse.

Internet intermediaries have the freedom and influence to seize this defining moment in cyber hate’s history. We believe that a thoughtful and nuanced intermediary-based approach to …

Intermediaries And Hate Speech: Fostering Digital Citizenship For Our Information Age, Danielle Keats Citron, Helen L. Norton

Faculty Scholarship

No longer confined to isolated corners of the web, cyber hate now enjoys a major presence on popular social media sites. The Facebook group Kill a Jew Day, for instance, acquired thousands of friends within days of its formation, while YouTube has hosted videos with names like How to Kill Beaners, Execute the Gays, and Murder Muslim Scum. The mainstreaming of cyber hate has the troubling potential to shape public expectations of online discourse.

Internet intermediaries have the freedom and influence to seize this defining moment in cyber hate’s history. We believe that a thoughtful and nuanced intermediary-based …

Intermediaries And Hate Speech: Fostering Digital Citizenship For Our Information Age, Danielle Keats Citron, Helen Norton

Publications

No longer confined to isolated corners of the web, cyber hate now enjoys a major presence on popular social media sites. The Facebook group Kill a Jew Day, for instance, acquired thousands of friends within days of its formation, while YouTube has hosted videos with names like How to Kill a Beaner, Execute the Gays, and Murder Muslim Scum. The mainstreaming of cyber hate has the troubling potential to shape public expectations of online discourse.

Internet intermediaries have the freedom and influence to seize this defining moment in cyber hate's history. We believe that a thoughtful and nuanced intermediary-based approach …

The Equal Protection Implications Of Government's Hateful Speech, Helen Norton

Publications

Under what circumstances should we understand government's racist or otherwise hateful speech to violate the Equal Protection Clause? Government speech that communicates hostility or animus on the basis of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or other class status can facilitate private parties' discriminatory behavior, deter its targets from certain important opportunities or activities, and communicate a message of exclusion and second-class status. Contemporary equal protection doctrine, however, does not yet fully address the harms that such government expression potentially poses. The recent emergence of the Court's government speech doctrine--which to date has emphasized the value of government expression without …

Book Review. Degradation: What The History Of Obscenity Tells Us About Hate Speech By Kevin W. Saunders, Jeannine Bell

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Regulating Cyberharassment: Some Thoughts On Sexual Harassment 2.0, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech And The Language Of Racism In Latin America: A Lens For Reconsidering Global Hate Speech Restrictions And Legislation Models, Tanya K. Hernandez

Faculty Scholarship

In Latin America, like many countries in Europe, hate speech is prohibited. Yet Latin America is rarely included in the transnational discussion regarding the regulation of hate speech. Instead, the discourse focuses on a comparison of the advisability of Europe's hate speech regulations and free speech acceptance of hate speech in the United States. As a result, the ability to fundamentally examine the connections between hate speech and inequality, in addition to the most effective legal mechanisms for addressing it, is undermined. It is especially critical to broaden the hate speech debate now that we are seeing an apparent rise …

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 …

The Hangman's Noose And The Lynch Mob: Hate Speech And The Jena Six, Jeannine Bell

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Taking the hangman's noose hanging in Jena, Louisiana in 2006 as a starting point, this Article begins by placing the hanging of a noose in historical context. The Article then proceeds to explore contemporary manifestations of noose hanging in the workplace, in schools and other settings. The Article examines noose hangings that occurred around the country since the display in Jena to explore the social meaning of a noose. Also examined are media constructions of noose hanging and the perception that some Blacks targeted by noose hanging have had of these incidents. The article concludes with a victim based reasonable …

Cross Burning A Hate Speech Under The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Wilson Huhn

Akron Law Faculty Publications

Under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ‘hate speech’ is constitutionally protected unless the circumstances of the case indicate that the speaker intended to threaten violence or provoke an immediate act of violence. While a person may be removed from a classroom or fired from employment for engaging in ‘hate speech’, under the First Amendment a person may be charged with a crime only if their statements constitute a threat or provocation of immediate violence. Moreover, even in cases where it is clear that a person is threatening violence or that violence is imminent, the person …

Hate Speech, C. Edwin Baker

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law

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 …

Book Review, Walking A Gantlet: Nielsen’S License To Harass, Lynne Henderson

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

O Say, Can You See: Free Expression By The Light Of Fiery Crosses, Jeannine Bell

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Article presents a comprehensive, context-based theory which both places cross burning in its proper doctrinal framework and recognizes the history of cross burning as one of Ku Klux Klan-inspired terrorism directed at African Americans. The author prefaces critical commentary on the Supreme Court's decision in Virginia v. Black with analysis of the full landscape of cross burning cases including another issue to which others have paid little attention - the ways in which state courts have negotiated First Amendment challenges to cross burning statutes. Thoroughly examining cross burning from each of these perspectives, the Article argues that cross burning …

Hate Speech In Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis, Michel Rosenfeld

Articles

The United States protects much hate speech that is banned in other Western constitutional democracies and under international human rights covenants and conventions. In the United States, only hate speech that leads to "incitement to violence" can be constitutionally restricted, while under the alternative approach found elsewhere, bans properly extend to hate speech leading to "incitement to hatred." The article undertakes a comparative analysis in light of changes brought by new technologies, such as the internet, which allow for worldwide spread of protected hate speech originating in the United States. After evaluating the respective doctrines, arguments and values involved, the …

Hate Speech In The Constitutional Law Of The United States, William B. Fisch

Faculty Publications

Our general reporter, Professor Pizzorusso, has given us “incitement to hatred” - primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like--as the working definition of “hate speech”, and asks to what extent such speech is constitutionally protected in the reporting countries. The United States of America are known at least in recent times for providing exceptionally broad protection for otherwise objectionable speech and expression, and hate speech is understood to be one of the areas in which they have positioned themselves further out on the speech-protective end of …