Law Commons^™

Why Confronting The Internet’S Dark Side?, Raphael Cohen-Almagor

raphael cohen-almagor

Raphael Cohen-Almagor, the author of Confronting the Internet's Dark Side, explains his motivation for exploring the dangerous side of the world wide web. This new book is the first comprehensive book on social responsibility on the Internet.

Rethinking The Context Of Hate Speech Regulation, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

In this essay I review Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses (Cambridge University Press 2012). As I show in the review, the Herz and Molnar volume advances our understanding of comparative hate speech regulation in three ways. First, the essays suggest that local context has a role to play in understanding, assessing, and applying hate speech regulations, even in an age when online hate speech is pressuring states and regions to reach common solutions to these problems. Second, the essays rebut the commonly held premise that the United States …

The Forgotten Nuremberg Hate Speech Case: Otto Dietrich And The Future Of Persecution Law, Gregory S. Gordon

Gregory S. Gordon

Among international jurists, the conventional wisdom is that atrocity speech law sprang fully formed from two judgments issued by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT): the crimes against humanity conviction of Nazi newspaper editor Julius Streicher, and the acquittal on the same charge of Third Reich Radio Division Chief Hans Fritzsche. But the exclusive focus on the IMT judgments as the founding texts of atrocity speech law is misplaced. Not long after Streicher and Fritzsche, and in the same courtroom, the United States Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) in the Ministries Case, issued an equally significant crimes against …

Why Do Europeans Ban Hate Speech? A Debate Between Karl Loewenstein And Robert Post, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

European countries restrict hate speech, the United States does not. This much is clear. What explains this difference? Too often the current discussion falls back on a culturally rich but normatively vacant exceptionalism (American or otherwise) or a normatively driven convergence perspective that fails to address historical, cultural and experiential differences that distinguish countries and legal systems. Inspired by the development discourse of historical sociology, this article seeks to record instances where Americans or Europeans have argued their approach to hate speech laws was more “advanced” or “modern.”

To that end this article focuses on two authors whose writing appears …

Who's The Fascist? Uses Of The Nazi Past At The Geert Wilders Trial, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

ABSTRACT: This essay looks at how, during his trial, Geert Wilders and his opponents used references to the Nazi era – including but not limited to the Holocaust – to frame debates over Muslim immigration, Wilders himself, and the acceptability of hate speech trials. The Wilders trial is especially interesting because each side sought to call the other a “fascist.” For Wilders, the Quran was a fascist book, an Islamic Mein Kampf. To his opponents, Wilders was a “prototypical” fascist, one who spoke to the gut not the mind. But perhaps the strongest use of the Nazi past involved victims. …

Freedom Of Speech In American & Spanish Law: A Comparative Perspective, Alfredo Coll

ALFREDO COLL

The Supreme Court of the United States, particularly in the area of obscenity within freedom of speech, has imposed stringent procedural requirements on governmental action aimed at controlling the exercise of first amendment rights. This study argues that several lessons can be learned from these cases: that a judicial body, following an adversary hearing, must decide on the protected character of the speech, and that the judicial determination must either precede or immediately follow any governmental action which restricts speech. The authors also compare and contrast free speech protection in the United States as compared to Spain by analyzing several …

One Spark Can Set A Fire: The Role Of Intent In Incitement To Genocide, Kate Kovarovic

Kate Kovarovic

The world was introduced to an entirely new method of warfare during World War II: that which was fought with words. Hitler mastered the art of media manipulation, and the world struggled to overcome his capacity to influence the German people. After the war, the international community felt compelled to restrict the type of conduct that had enabled Hitler to so easily gain control of his audiences. However, legal scholars struggled to balance this need with the protection of free speech. Eventually, the Genocide Convention was drafted to explicitly prohibit direct and public incitement to genocide, but not mere hate …

Hate Speech And Government Speech, Charlotte H. Taylor

Charlotte H. Taylor

Hate Speech and Government Speech

After a spate of hate speech incidents involving nooses provoked outcry in 2007, the immediate response was regulation. A number of states passed laws proscribing the placing of a noose on private property with the intent to intimidate. This response reanimates the familiar debate between those who seek to ban hate speech—the “anti-subordination camp”—and those who oppose such prohibitions on speech—the “free speech camp.” At loggerheads since the movement to institute anti-hate speech laws first gathered momentum in the late 1980s, these two camps fundamentally disagree over how to reconcile the constitutional value of equality …

Wild-West Cowboys Versus Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys: Some Problems In Comparative Approaches To Extreme Speech, Eric Heinze

Prof. Eric Heinze, Queen Mary University of London

All European states ban some form of hate speech. US law precludes such bans. In view of the political and symbolic importance of free speech, it becomes tempting to assume that trans-Atlantic differences towards hate speech reflect deeper cultural divisions.

However, we must pay attention to comparative methodology before drawing ambitious conclusions about cross-cultural social and political differences that derive solely from differences in formal, black-letter norms. In this volume, Robert Post claims that formal, constitutional requirements of content-neutral regulation reflect a freer public sphere in the US, in contrast to the European public sphere.

Yet a legal-realist approach casts …

Cumulative Jurisprudence And Hate Speech: Sexual Orientation And Analogies To Disability, Age And Obesity, Eric Heinze

Prof. Eric Heinze, Queen Mary University of London

Non-discrimination norms in human rights instruments generally enumerate specified categories for protection, such as race, ethnicity, sex or religion, etc. They often omit express reference to sexual minorities.

Through open-ended interpretation, however, sexual minorities subsequently become incorporated. That ‘cumulative jurisprudence’ yields protections for sexual minorities through norms governing privacy, employment, age of consent, or freedoms of speech and association.

Hate speech bans, too, are often formulated with reference to traditionally recognised categories, particularly race and religion. It might be expected that the same cumulative jurisprudence should therefore be applied to include sexual minorities. In this article, that approach is challenged. …

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

Wilson R. Huhn

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 …