Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Finding Freedom For The Thoughts We Hate, John M. Greabe
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 Debate Has Roots In Us History, Rodney A. Smolla
Hate Speech Debate Has Roots In Us History, Rodney A. Smolla
Rod Smolla
No abstract provided.
Hate Speech And The First Amendment, Alan E. Garfield
Hate Speech And The First Amendment, Alan E. Garfield
Alan E Garfield
No abstract provided.
Can The Burning Of Holy Books Ever Be Justified?, Waseem Ahmad Qureshi
Can The Burning Of Holy Books Ever Be Justified?, Waseem Ahmad Qureshi
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice
While exploring the historical context of the burning of books during the times of Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of unified China, the European Dark Ages, the colonial era, the Nazi Germany era, Iranian triumphs, and contemporary instances of the burning of literature, comics, and history, philosophy, and religious books,this paper identifies “freedom of expression” as the underlyingprinciple for the burning of holy books, an action that eventually fuels religious hatred, public disorder, and violence in society. Notwithstanding such consequences, Pastor Terry Jonesannounced an event calling for the burning of the Holy Qur’an onthe ninth anniversary of the 9/11 …
This Is Why We Protect Hate Speech, Alan E. Garfield
This Is Why We Protect Hate Speech, Alan E. Garfield
Alan E Garfield
Hate Speech On Social Media, Amos N. Guiora, Elizabeth Park
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 …
Trending Now: The Role Of Defamation Law In Remedying Harm From Social Media Backlash, Cory Batza
Trending Now: The Role Of Defamation Law In Remedying Harm From Social Media Backlash, Cory Batza
Pepperdine Law Review
Defamatory comments on social media have become commonplace. When the online community is outraged by some event, social media users often flood the Internet with hateful and false comments about the alleged perpetrator, feeling empowered by their numbers and anonymity. This wave of false and harmful information about an individual’s reputation has caused many individuals to lose their jobs and suffer severe emotional trauma. This Comment explores whether the target of social media backlash can bring a successful defamation claim against the users who have destroyed their reputations on and offline. Notably, one of the biggest hurdles these plaintiffs will …
Freedom Of Speech And The Criminal Law, Dan T. Coenen
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 …