Law Commons^™

First Amendment Fetishism, John M. Kang

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court, starting in 1971, has lit upon a reckless path of protecting speech that is, by any reasonable measure, appallingly vulgar, emotionally hurtful, and dangerous. Against the wishes of the community, the Court has protected a roster of extremely offensive speech:

• a rageful repetition of the F-word uttered by a teacher before children in a school auditorium

• a White skinhead’s cross burning on the front lawn of a Black family’s house

• the public burning of the American flag by an avowed Communist who hated the United States and who cared nothing for the emotional pain …

Disrupting The Narrative: Diving Deeper Into Section 230 Political Discourse, Koustubh “K.J.” Bagchi, Elizabeth Banker, Ife Ogunleye

Pepperdine Law Review

Online spaces have undoubtedly played a significant role in facilitating discourse and the exchange of information. With this increased discourse, however, digital platforms have also seen a rise in harmful or problematic content shared online––including health misinformation, hate speech, and child sex abuse material, among others. Many commentators have put the blame for this trend on Section 230, arguing that Section 230 has enabled the spread of harmful content and suggesting that Section 230 ought to be amended or replaced. This Essay, by contrast, argues that the current narrative about Section 230 gets it wrong. In reality, Section 230 has …

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. …

Criminal Policy In The Face Of Hate Speech On Facebook “Analytical Study In The Light Of Palestinian Legislation”, Mohammad Abd Ell Fattah Shtayah

AAU Journal of Business and Law مجلة جامعة العين للأعمال والقانون

The overall objective of this research is to clarify the difference between two overlapping: hate speech and freedom of opinion and expression, to learn why such speech is widespread in Palestinian society, to highlight the Palestinian legislator’s criminal policy in the face of the dissemination and promotion of hate speech via Facebook, and to access a policy paper addressing hate speech through legislative outlets. The problem with research is how to balance freedom of opinion and expression and criminalize hate speech via Facebook. The researcher followed the analytical descriptive approach, divided the research into two main demands, and reached a …

Harmful Speech And The Covid-19 Penumbra, Kenneth Grad, Amanda Turnbull

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

We make two central claims in this essay. First, the themes of malinformation have remained remarkably consistent across pandemics. What has changed is only the manner of their spread through evolving technologies and globalization. Thus, as with pandemic preparedness more generally, our failure to take proactive measures reflects a failure to heed the lessons of the past. Second, we argue that the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to tackle online falsehoods and mitigate their impact in the future.

We proceed in three parts. Part one addresses the harmful speech that inevitably follows in pandemic’s wake. We illustrate this through …

The Digital Services Act And The Brussels Effect On Platform Content Moderation, Dawn C. Nunziato

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

The EU’s latest regulation of social media platforms – the recently enacted Digital Services Act – will create tensions and conflicts with the US speech regime applicable to social media platforms. The DSA, like the precursor regulations of social media platforms by the EU, will further instantiate the Brussels Effect, whereby EU regulators wield powerful influence on how social media platforms moderate content on the global scale. This is because the DSA’s regulatory regime (with its huge penalties for noncompliance) will incentivize the platforms to skew their global content moderation policies toward the EU’s instead of the United States’s balance …

Nonprofits, Taxes, And Speech, Lloyd H. Mayer

Journal Articles

Federal tax law is of two minds when it comes to speech by nonprofits. The tax benefits provided to nonprofits are justified in significant part because they provide nonprofits great discretion in choosing the specific ends and means to pursue, thereby promoting diversity and pluralism. But current law withholds some of these tax benefits if a nonprofit engages in certain types of political speech. Legislators have also repeatedly, if unsuccessfully, sought to expand these political speech restrictions in various ways. And some commentators have proposed denying tax benefits to groups engaged in other types of disfavored speech, including hate speech …

Convergence & Conflict: Reflections On Global And Regional Human Rights Standards On Hate Speech, Evelyn Aswad, David Kaye

Northwestern Journal of Human Rights

What is hate speech under international human rights law? And how do key international adjudicators interpret the law governing it? This Article seeks to illuminate two countervailing and under-reported trends: on the one hand, a growing consensus among U.N. experts and treaty bodies concerning interpretations of “hate speech” prohibitions in international law; and on the other, a failure of several regional human rights bodies to develop approaches to hate speech that are consistent with the U.N.’s universal standards. The Article begins by analyzing the U.N.’s approach to freedom of expression and hate speech and examining how, in the last decade, …

The Hydraulics Of Intermediary Liability Regulation, Ben Horton

Cleveland State Law Review

The intermediary immunity created by Section 230 probably protects claims based on the non-legal harms of hate speech and misinformation as well as a European-style proportionality system of content moderation better than a more “legalized” intermediary liability regime would. Contrasting the existing non-copyright content moderation systems with empirical research on the effects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) shows that a comprehensive regulation of content moderation would incentivize the moderation of defamation and negligence claims at the expense of these important non-legal claims and incentivize a homogenous, categorical approach to content moderation. Furthermore, empirical research on the effects of …

Fear, Loathing, And The Hemispheric Consequences Of Xenophobic Hate, Ernesto Sagás, Ediberto Román

University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review

“When you have fifteen thousand people marching up . . . how do you stop these people?” “You shoot them” [crowd member shouts] [chuckling, Trump responds:] “[O]nly in the Panhandle can you get away with that thing.”¹
President Donald Trump

“Thousands of criminal aliens. They’re pouring into our country.”²
President Donald Trump

“They’re not people, these are animals.”³
President Donald Trump

“Take a look at the death and destruction that’s been caused by people coming into this country caused by people that shouldn’t be here.”⁴
President Donald Trump

“ [We] have millions and millions of people …

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 …

Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans

Cleveland State Law Review

A cornerstone of First Amendment doctrine is that counterspeech — speech that responds to speech, including disfavored, unpopular, or offensive speech — is preferable to government censorship or speech regulation. The counterspeech doctrine is often invoked to justify overturning or limiting legislation, regulation, or other government action. Counterspeech forms part of the rationale for the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment is arguably designed to promote. Yet critics assert that counterspeech is hardly an effective remedy for the harms caused by "hate speech" and other offensive words that are expressed in American society, given the realities of how speech …

How Journalists Think About The First Amendment Vis-À-Vis Their Coverage Of Hate Groups, Gregory Perreault, Jonathan Peters, Brett Johnson, Leslie Klein

Scholarly Works

This study, based on in-depth interviews with U.S.-based journalists (n = 18), explores the increasingly fraught circumstances of reporting on hate groups. We examine how journalists think about the First Amendment vis-à-vis their coverage of such groups. Through the lens of media ecology and First Amendment principles and theories, we argue ultimately that journalists who cover hate groups use the First Amendment to identify their place in the journalistic environment.

Stanley Fish, The First, And The Life Of The Law, Samuel A. Terilli, Jr.

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech And Democracy: Deciding What Sort Of Legal Doctrine Is Best Suited To Hate Speech Regulation In Taiwan, Yen-Hsiang Chang

Maurer Theses and Dissertations

Taiwanese people are committed to the values of freedom, democracy, and human rights. Nowadays, according to the rating posted on the Freedom House website, Taiwan is considered one of the world’s free countries and is among the best in providing political rights and civil liberties. Knowing this current state, it is hard to believe that the small island was under a period of martial law lasting for 38 years in the middle of the twentieth century.

Tremendous progress and transition in Taiwanese politics and society has happened after democratization. One significant change is the progression of the right to freedom …

Disentangling Disinformation: What Makes Regulating Disinformation So Difficult?, Jason Pielemeier

Utah Law Review

This Essay articulates some of the critical ways in which disinformation differs from other categories of harmful content and explores some of the early efforts by platforms and governments to address the issue. It begins by analyzing the semantics around disinformation, explaining how specific terminology can allude to distinct concerns. It then explores the similarities and differences between disinformation and related categories of harmful content, like hate speech and terrorist incitement, before examining some of the corporate and regulatory initiatives that have emerged. It concludes with some observations and cautionary notes for corporate and governmental policy makers as they consider …

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 …

Similar Interpretations, Different Conclusions: The Criminalization Of Hate Speech In The West, Michael Goryelov, Wesley S. Mccann

Northern Illinois University Law Review

The United States is unique internationally in that hate speech is not considered a criminal offense. Drawing from a sample of Western countries and their respective statutes, the analysis will look at different nations' interpretations of hate speech criminality. This study identifies common patterns in international criminal legal codes and compares them to U.S. jurisprudence, focusing on content neutrality and the ideological content of these laws. It was found that hate speech statutes internationally tended towards content neutrality, were structured similarly to anti-defamatory codes, and generally did not result in amendments/extensions of new regulatory laws. These findings imply a closer …

A Cacophony Of Speech, Law, And Persona: Battling Against The Vortex Of #Metoo In France And The U.S., Anne Wagner, Sarah Marusek

Journal of Civil Law Studies

The pervasive proliferation of rumors, through #MeToo and #BalanceTonPorc, communicates meaningful and meaningless-making processes on misconducts both in the French and U.S. con-texts. Such rumors have transformed the online practices by culti-vating both verbal and non-verbal hate speech free and/or free speech. This cacophony of speech, law, and persona has led to a debate relayed on social media platforms, exposing people to a dan-ger zone mostly based as shame, hate, fear, or even destruction, as anonymity and due process no longer prevail.

Policing Hate Speech And Extremism: A Taxonomy Of Arguments In Opposition, Leonard M. Niehoff

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Hate speech and extremist association do real and substantial harm to individuals, groups, and our society as a whole. Our common sense, experience, and empathy for the targets of extremism tell us that our laws should do more to address this issue. Current reform efforts have therefore sought to revise our laws to do a better job at policing, prohibiting, and punishing hate speech and extremist association.

Efforts to do so, however, encounter numerous and substantial challenges. We can divide them into three general categories: definitional problems, operational problems, and conscientious problems. An informed understanding of these three categories of …

“It Ain’T So Much The Things We Don’T Know That Get Us In Trouble. It’S The Things We Know That Ain’T So”: The Dubious Intellectual Foundations Of The Claim That “Hate Speech” Causes Political Violence, Gordon Danning

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States is an outlier in its legal protection for what is commonly termed “hate speech.” Proponents of bringing American jurisprudence closer to the international norm often argue that hate speech causes violence, particularly political violence. However, such claims largely rest on assumptions which are inconsistent with social scientists’ understanding of the causes of political violence, including that ethnic identity and ideological salience are more often the result of violence than a cause thereof; that violence during conflict is generally unrelated to the conflict’s ostensible central cleavage; and that violence is generally instrumental and elite-driven, rather than spontaneous and …

Free Speech, Public Safety, & Controversial Speakers: Balancing Universities' Dual Roles After Charlottesville, Elisabeth E. Constantino

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note seeks to develop an approach to hateful and controversial speech that protects First Amendment values and students alike. Part I discusses the legal backdrop and First Amendment tradition that underlies a permissive view of hateful speech on university campuses. Part I also discusses the roots of time, place, and manner regulations and the public forum doctrine, both of which recent legislation invokes. Part II provides a timeline of events that have highlighted the tension between free speech and public safety on campuses. Part II also discusses the eruption of legislation that these events inspired. Finally, Part III …

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 …

Virtual Hatred: How Russia Tried To Start A Race War In The United States, William J. Aceves

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Russian government engaged in a sophisticated strategy to influence the U.S. political system and manipulate American democracy. While most news reports have focused on the cyber-attacks aimed at Democratic Party leaders and possible contacts between Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign, a more pernicious intervention took place. Throughout the campaign, Russian operatives created hundreds of fake personas on social media platforms and then posted thousands of advertisements and messages that sought to promote racial divisions in the United States. This was a coordinated propaganda effort. Some Facebook and Twitter posts denounced the …

You Can’T Say That!: Public Forum Doctrine And Viewpoint Discrimination In The Social Media Era, Micah Telegen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The growing prevalence of privately-owned social media platforms is changing the way Americans and their governments communicate. This shift offers new opportunities, but also requires a reinterpretation of the First Amendment’s proscription of government limitations of speech. The public forum doctrine and its proscription of viewpoint discrimination seem particularly stretched by the digital revolution and the development of social media. In ongoing cases, litigants and courts have invoked the doctrine to limit the government’s ability to ‘block’ those who comment critically on government pages—much to the chagrin of those who note the private status of the companies hosting the pages …

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?: Censorship Of Hate Speech May Well Increase Violence, Gordon Danning

Nevada Law Journal Forum

From Charlottesville to college campuses, people with odious hate groups have risen in notoriety recently. Responses to those people and the groups to which they belong have ranged from efforts to keep them from speaking in person, to deleting their presence on the internet, to efforts to have them terminated from their jobs or evicted from their apartments, and even to physical assault by members of such groups as Antifa. Such efforts at censoring, ostracizing, and stigmatizing hate group members are generally justified by claims that such individuals are dangerous. It is true that some scholars have found an association …

Extremist Speech, Compelled Conformity, And Censorship Creep, Danielle Keats Citron

Notre Dame Law Review

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, the dominant 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 …

Hate Speech - The United States Versus The Rest Of The World?, Kevin Boyle

Maine Law Review

The search for a commonly agreed upon international legal understanding of the meaning of free speech or freedom of expression, as an individual human right, was a major international preoccupation from the 1940s to the 1980s. During the Cold War it was, of course, also a highly ideological debate. There were three positions, broadly speaking: the Soviet Union and its allies, who had little enthusiasm for the idea at all; the United States, which believed in it—many thought—too much; and the rest, the other Western democracies and developing countries, who tried to hold the middle ground. These contrasting positions were …

Sex, Lies, And Ultrasound, B. Jessie Hill

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …