Hate speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.

Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a contemporary example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]

International[edit]

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".[10] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.[11] On 3 May 2011, Michael O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of "hate speech" do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20.[12] Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[13]

Enforcement of hate speech laws[edit]

Hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those that are designed for public order and those that are designed to protect human dignity. Those designed to protect public order seem to be somewhat ineffective because they are rarely enforced. For example, in Northern Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty one years. Those meant to protect human dignity, however, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands seem to be successfully enforced.[14]

Harm of hate speech[edit]

Communication theory provides some insight into the harms caused by hate speech. According to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions allow minorities to be categorized with negative attributes tied to them, and are directly harmful them. Matsuda et al. (1993) found that racist speech could cause in the recipient of the message direct physical and emotional changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the subordination of these minorities. This has been enough to sway the court in previous cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in USA, in which the Court stated that segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their [AfricanAmericans’] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination is supported by scholarly evidence.[15]

Hate speech on Facebook[edit]

Following a campaign that involved the participation of Women, Action and the Media, the Everyday Sexism Project and the activist Soraya Chemaly, who were among 100 advocacy groups, Facebook agreed to update its policy on hate speech. The campaign highlighted content that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women, and used over 57,000 tweets and more than 4,900 emails to create outcomes such as the withdrawal of advertising from Facebook by 15 companies, including Nissan UK, House of Burlesque, and Nationwide UK. The social media website initially responded by stating that "While it may be vulgar and offensive, distasteful content on its own does not violate our policies",[16] but then agreed to take action on May 29, 2013, after it had "become clear that our systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate."[17]

By country[edit]

Australia[edit]

Australia's hate speech laws vary by jurisdiction, and seek especially to prevent victimisation on account of race.

Belgium[edit]

The Belgian Anti-Racism Law, in full, the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts inspired by Racism or Xenophobia, is a law against hate speech and discrimination passed by the Federal Parliament of Belgium in 1981 which made certain acts motivated by racism or xenophobia illegal. It is also known as the Moureaux Law.

The Belgian Holocaust denial law, passed on 23 March 1995, bans public Holocaust denial. Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly "deny, play down, justify or approve of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War". Prosecution is led by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines of up to 2500 EUR.

Brazil[edit]

In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".[18]

Canada[edit]

In Canada, advocating genocide[19] or inciting hatred[20] against any "identifiable group" is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation". It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

Chile[edit]

Article 31 of the "Ley sobre Libertades de Opinión e Información y Ejercicio del Periodismo" (statute on freedom of opinion and information and the performance of journalism), punishes with a high fine those who “through any means of social communication makes publications or transmissions intended to promote hatred or hostility towards persons or a group of persons due to their race, sex, religion or nationality".[21] This norm has been applied to expressions proffered through the internet.[22] There is also a rule aggravating the penalties of crimes when they are motivated by discriminatory hatred.

Council of Europe[edit]

The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The ECtHR does not offer an accepted definition for "hate speech" but instead offers only parameters by which prosecutors can decide if the "hate speech" is entitled to the protection of freedom of speech.[23]

The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.

Croatia[edit]

The Croatian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Croatian penal code prohibits and punishes anyone "who based on differences of race, religion, language, political or any other belief, wealth, birth, education, social status or other properties, gender, skin color, nationality or ethnicity violates basic human rights and freedoms recognized from international community".[24]

Denmark[edit]

Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements by which a group is threatened (trues), insulted (forhånes) or degraded (nedværdiges) due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[25]

Finland[edit]

There has been considerable debate over the definition of "hate speech" (vihapuhe) in the Finnish language.[26][27]

If "hate speech" is taken to mean ethnic agitation, it is prohibited in Finland and defined in the section 11 of the penal code, War crimes and crimes against humanity, as publishing data, an opinion or other statement that threatens or insults a group on basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or any comparable basis. Ethnic agitation is punishable with a fine or up to 2 years in prison, or 4 months to 4 years if aggravated (such as incitement to genocide).[28]

Critics claim that, in political contexts, labeling certain opinions and statements "hate speech" can be used to silence unfavorable or critical opinions and play down debate. Certain politicians, including Member of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho, consider the term "hate speech" problematic because of the lack of an easy definition.[27]

France[edit]

France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).[29]

Germany[edit]

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders". Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g., the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).

Iceland[edit]

In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:

"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (In this context "assault" does not refer to physical violence but only to verbal "assault".)

India[edit]

Freedom of speech and expression is protected by article 19 (1) of the constitution of India, but under article 19(2) "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of "the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence".[30]

Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia has been a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 2006, but has not promulgated comprehensive legislation against hate-speech crimes. Calls for a comprehensive anti-hate-speech law and associated educational program have followed statements by a leader of a hard-line Islamic organization that Balinese Hindus were mustering forces to protect the "lascivious Miss World pageant" in “a war against Islam" and that "those who fight on the path of Allah are promised heaven". The statements are said to be an example of similar messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques throughout the country by fundamentalist clerics.[31]

Ireland[edit]

In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i), however, this is only an implied right provided that liberty of expression "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State".[32] The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation".[33][34]

Japan[edit]

Japanese law covers threats and slander, but it "does not apply to hate speech against general groups of people".[35] Japan became a member of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1995. Article 4 of the convention sets forth provisions calling for the criminalization of hate speech. But the Japanese government has suspended the provisions, saying actions to spread or promote the idea of racial discrimination have not been taken in Japan to such an extent that legal action is necessary. The Foreign Ministry says that this assessment remains unchanged.[36]

In May 2013, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) warned the Japanese government that it needs to take measures to curb hate speech against so-called "comfort women", or Asian women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II. The committee's recommendation called for the Japanese government to better educate Japanese society on the plight of women who were forced into sexual slavery to prevent stigmatization, and to take necessary measures to repair the lasting effects of exploitation, including addressing their right to compensation.[37][38]

In 2013, following demonstrations, parades, and comments posted on the Internet threatening violence against foreign residents of Japan, especially Koreans, there are concerns that hate speech is a growing problem in Japan.[39][40][41] Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Justice Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki have expressed concerns about the raise in hate speech, saying that it "goes completely against the nation's dignity", but so far have stopped short of proposing any legal action against protesters.[36]

On 22 September 2013 around 2,000 people participated in the "March on Tokyo for Freedom" campaigning against recent hate speech marches. Participants called on the Japanese government to "sincerely adhere" to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Sexual minorities and the disabled also participated in the march.[42]

On 25 September 2013 a new organization, "An international network overcoming hate speech and racism" (Norikoenet), that is opposed to hate speech against ethnic Koreans and other minorities in Japan was launched.[43]

On 7 October 2013, in a rare ruling on racial discrimination against ethnic Koreans, a Japanese court ordered an anti-Korean group, Zaitokukai, to stop "hate speech" protests against a Korean school in Kyoto and pay the school 12.26 million yen ($126,400 U.S.) in compensation for protests that took place in 2009 and 2010.[44][45]

A United Nations panel urged Japan to ban hate speech.[46][47][48]

Jordan[edit]

Several Jordanian laws seek to prevent the publication or dissemination of material that would provoke strife or hatred:[49]

  • Article 6 of Act No. 76 of 2009 regulating publicity and advertising in municipal areas states: (a) The following shall be deemed an infringement of this regulation: (i) The inclusion in publicity or advertisements of material that offends national or religious sentiment or public morals or that is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The publicization of ideas based on racial superiority, racial hatred and the instigation of racial discrimination against any person or group constitute punishable offences.
  • Article 20 of the Audiovisual Media Act No. 71 of 2002 states: “The licensee shall not broadcast or rebroadcast any material that is likely to provoke confessional and interethnic strife, to undermine national unity or to instigate terrorism, racism or religious intolerance or to damage domestic relations in the Kingdom.”
  • Article 7 of the Printing and Publications Act No. 8 of 1998 sets out the ethical rules that apply to journalism and the conduct of journalists. It is illegal to publish material likely to stir up hatred or to make propaganda with a view to setting citizens against one another.
  • Article 40(a)(iv) of the Print and Publications Act No. 10 of 1993 states that it is prohibited to publish articles that are likely to jeopardize national unity, incite others to commit crimes, stir up hostility, and foment hatred, division and discord between members of society.

Netherlands[edit]

The Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal code is as follows:

  • Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[50]
  • Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[51]

In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, for breaching articles 137c and 137d.[52] On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges.[53]

New Zealand[edit]

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons". Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.

Norway[edit]

Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual orientation, religion or philosophy of life.[54] At the same time, the Norwegian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, and there has been an ongoing public and judicial debate over where the right balance between the ban against hate speech and the right to free speech lies. Norwegian courts have been restrictive in the use of the hate speech law and only few persons have been sentenced for violating the law since its implementation in 1970. A public Free Speech committee (1996-1999) recommended to abolish the hate speech law but the Norwegian Parliament instead voted to slightly strengthen it.[55]

Poland[edit]

The hate speech laws in Poland punish those who offend the feelings of the religious by e.g. disturbing a religious ceremony or creating public calumny. They also prohibit public expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation.[56]

Serbia[edit]

The Serbian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but restricts it in certain cases to protect human rights. The criminal charge of "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" carries a minimum six months prison term and a maximum of ten years.[57]

Singapore[edit]

Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. The Penal Code criminalizes the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion. It also makes it an offence for anyone to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.

South Africa[edit]

In South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 contains the following clause:

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―

  1. be hurtful;
  2. be harmful or to incite harm;
  3. promote or propagate hatred.[58]

The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another")[59] may also be used to prosecute hate speech.[60]

In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)", a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred.[61]

Sweden[edit]

Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith, or sexual orientation.[62][63] The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.[64] There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights.[65] The crime is called Hets mot folkgrupp in Swedish which directly translated can be translated to Incitement (of hatred/violence) towards population groups.

The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,[66] was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke Green of hate speech based on a 2003 sermon. His conviction was later overturned.[65][67]

Switzerland[edit]

In Switzerland public discrimination or invoking to rancor against persons or a group of people because of their race, ethnicity, is getting penalized with a term of imprisonment until 3 years or a mulct. In 1934, the authorities of the Basel-Stadt canton criminalized anti-Jewish hate speech, e.g., the accusation of ritual murders, mostly in reaction against a pro-nazi antisemitic group and newspaper, the Volksbund.[68]

United Kingdom[edit]

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[3][69][70][71][72][73][74] Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches, does not criminalise jokes about peoples’ beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.[75]

United States[edit]

Constitutional framework[edit]

The 1789 Constitution of the United States of America dealt only with the three heads of power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the last four articles. The protection of civil rights was not written into the original Constitution but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Although this section is written only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch), the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, works to extend this prohibition to laws of the states as well.

Some state constitutions also have a "free speech" provision, most notably, California.[76]

Supreme Court case law[edit]

Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[77]

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[78]

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[79] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[80] The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [81]

Societal implementation[edit]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[82][83]

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[84] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[85] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[86]

NTIA report[edit]

In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. Study findings revealed only a few instances during the past decade in which broadcast facilities were used to spread messages of hate and bigotry. In two such instances, radio broadcasts arguably urged an audience to commit hate-motivated crimes. In other instances, radio broadcast licensees aired programming that evidenced prejudice. A few highly publicized cable television programs promoted messages of hate and bigotry. In some cases, cable programming stirred community reaction and was followed by counterprogramming. During the 1980s, computer bulletin boards were established by various white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, but many fell into disuse later in the decade. The study also found that hate "hotlines" are used to deliver recorded messages of bigotry and prejudice and that telephones can be used to intimidate, threaten, and harass individuals and organizations. NTIA's research suggests that hate messages represent a very small percentage of electronic communications media and that the best response is public education rather than government censorship and regulation. Legal remedies involving the use of telecommunications to commit or encourage hate crimes are discussed, as well as technologies that can protect or empower targets of hate speech.[87] A list of commenters is appended.

In 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”. This report gave one of the first definitions by government on hate speech.[citation needed] According to NTIA hate speech is:

  • Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
  • Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.

Hate speech in media[edit]

In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC),[88] a nonprofit organization with a mission to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a three prong strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[89] The petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center (CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study” was also released in January 2009.[90][91]

“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.

  • False facts
  • Flawed argumentation
  • Divisive language
  • Dehumanizing metaphors

In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.[92] Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Definitions for "hate speech", Dictionary.com. Retrieved 25 June 2011
  2. ^ Nockleby, John T. (2000), “Hate Speech,” in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, vol. 3. (2nd ed.), Detroit: Macmillan Reference US, pp. 1277-1279. Cited in "Library 2.0 and the Problem of Hate Speech," by Margaret Brown-Sica and Jeffrey Beall, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, vol. 9 no. 2 (Summer 2008).
  3. ^ a b Criminal Justice Act 2003
  4. ^ An Activist's Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles; p125 by Yogyakarta Principles in Action
  5. ^ Kinney, Terry A. (2008). "Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms". The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Reference Online. doi:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x. Retrieved 10 March 2010. 
  6. ^ Uslegal.com: Hate speech Retrieved 31 July 2012
  7. ^ UK-USA: The British Character of America
  8. ^ "The PCspeak of Diversity". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  9. ^ "George Orwell meets the OIC". Human Events. Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  10. ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20
  11. ^ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 4
  12. ^ Paragraph 54 of "Draft general comment No. 34", UN Human Rights Committee Hundredth and first session, 3 May 2011
  13. ^ Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the use of the Internet for purposes of incitement to racial hatred, racist propaganda and xenophobia, and on ways of promoting international cooperation in this area, Preparatory Committee for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, United Nations, 27 April 2001
  14. ^ Bell, Jeannine (Summer 2009). "Restraining the heartless: racist speech and minority rights.". Indiana Law Journal 84: 963–979. Retrieved October 9, 2014. 
  15. ^ Calvert, Clay (1997). "Hate Speech and its Harms: A Communication Theory Perspective". Journal of Communication 47: 4–19. Retrieved October 9, 2014. 
  16. ^ Sara C Nelson (28 May 2013). "#FBrape: Will Facebook Heed Open Letter Protesting 'Endorsement Of Rape & Domestic Violence'?". The Huffington Post UK. Retrieved 29 May 2013. 
  17. ^ Rory Carroll (29 May 2013). "Facebook gives way to campaign against hate speech on its pages". The Guardian UK. Retrieved 29 May 2013. 
  18. ^ "1988 Constitution made racism a crime with no right to bail", Folha de São Paulo, 15 April 2005.
  19. ^ "Advocating genocide", R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sec. 318, Criminal Code of Canada
  20. ^ "Public incitement of hatred" and "Wilful promotion of hatred", R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sec. 319, Criminal Code of Canada
  21. ^ "Alvaro Paúl Díaz, The Criminalization of Hate Speech in Chile in Light of Comparative Case Law (IN SPANISH), Rev. chil. derecho, 2011, vol.38, n.3, pp. 573-609.". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  22. ^ "Alvaro Paul Díaz, The Criminalization of Hate Speech in Chile in Light of Comparative Case Law (IN SPANISH), Rev. chil. derecho, 2011, vol.38, n.3, pp. 573-609.". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  23. ^ Sharon, Alina Dain (February 28, 2013). "A Web of Hate: European, U.S. Laws Clash on Defining and Policing Online Anti-Semitism". Algemeiner Journal. 
  24. ^ Article 174. of Croatian penal code on Croatian Wikisource
  25. ^ Danish Penal code, Straffeloven, section 266 B.
  26. ^ "TV2:n Vihaillassa ei päästy yksimielisyyteen vihapuhe-käsitteestä". Helsing Sanomat (in Finnish). 20 September 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011. 
  27. ^ a b "Vihapuheen määritelmästä ei yksimielisyyttä". YLE Uutiset (in Finnish) (YLE). 21 September 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011. 
  28. ^ Finnish Penal code Rikoslaki/Strafflagen Chapter 11, section 10 Ethnic agitation / Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan
  29. ^ Loi 90-615 du 13 juillet 1990
  30. ^ Constitution of India
  31. ^ "Hard-Liners Targeting Miss World in Bali Shows Need for Anti-Hate-Speech Law in Indonesia", Johannes Nugroho, Jakarta Globe, 23 September 2013. Retrieved 29 September 2013.
  32. ^ "Bunreacht na hEireann Fundamental Rights". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  33. ^ "Irish Statute Book Database". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  34. ^ "Dublin Bus driver convicted of incitement to hatred". RTE.ie. 22 September 2000. Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  35. ^ "Foreign correspondents share opinions on Japanese hate speech marches"[dead link], The Mainichi, 10 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
  36. ^ a b "Justice minister criticizes hate speech in Japan but won't punish offenders", The Asahi Shimbun, 10 May 2013.
  37. ^ "UN group urges Tokyo to curb hate speech", Sarah Kim, Korea JoongAng Daily, 24 May 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
  38. ^ "C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations", Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Japan, adopted by the Committee at its fiftieth session, 29 April-17 May 2013 (E/C.12/JPN/CO/3), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Economic and Social Council, United Nations, 10 June 2013. "26. The Committee is concerned about the lasting negative effects of the exploitation to which 'comfort women' were subjected on their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and their entitlement to reparation (arts. 11 and 3). The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary measures to address the lasting effects of the exploitation and to guarantee the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by 'comfort women'. The Committee also recommends that the State party educate the public on the exploitation of 'comfort women' so as to prevent hate speech and other manifestations of hatred that stigmatize them."
  39. ^ "Politicians silent on curbing hate speech", Eric Johnston, Japan Times, 10 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
  40. ^ "Japan conservatives: 'Hate speech goes too far' ", Julian Ryall, Deutsche Welle, 9 July 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
  41. ^ "No place for hate speech", Japan Times, 5 June 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
  42. ^ "Anti-hate speech march fills streets around Shinjuku", The Mainichi, 23 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
  43. ^ "Anti-hate speech group launched in Japan", The Mainichi, 26 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2013.
  44. ^ "Japan court in Korean discrimination ruling", BBC News, 7 October 2013. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
  45. ^ "Kyoto court bans 'hate speech' around school for ethnic Koreans", Gakushi Fujiwara, The Asahi Shimbun, 7 October 2013. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
  46. ^ "Hate speech rallies spreading across Japan". AJW by The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  47. ^ "U.N. panel urges Japan to enact law to prohibit hate speech". AJW by The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  48. ^ "U.N. panel urges Japan to regulate hate speech by law". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  49. ^ "Jordan, Combined reports submitted for 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007", Reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United Nations, 21 September 2011, accessed 13 September 2012
  50. ^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code - article 137c
  51. ^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code - article 137d
  52. ^ "BBC report on Geert Wilders". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  53. ^ "Geert Wilders cleared of hate charges by Dutch court". BBC News. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2011. 
  54. ^ "Norwegian Penal code, Straffeloven, section 135 a.". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  55. ^ Sindre Bangstad: diskriminerende ytringer Store norske leksikon (Norwegian), retrieved 25 April 2013
  56. ^ Venice Commission (2008). "Analysis of the Domestic Law Concerning Blasphemy, Religious Insult and Inciting Religious Hatred in Albania, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom on the Basis of Replies to a Questionnaire". Council of Europe. Retrieved 14 May 2010. [dead link]
  57. ^ Serbian Penal code, section 317.
  58. ^ Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000, s. 10(1).
  59. ^ Clark, DM (2003). South African Law Reform Commission Issue Paper 22 Project 130: Stalking. South African Law Commission. ISBN 0-621-34410-9. 
  60. ^ Hanti, Otto (9 August 2006). "Man fined after racial slur to top judge". IOL. Retrieved 10 July 2007. 
  61. ^ Benesch, Susan. "Words as Weapons". World Policy Journal (Spring 2012). Retrieved 31 May 2012. 
  62. ^ Swedish Penal code, Brottsbalken, chapter 16, section 8.
  63. ^ The Swedish Penal Code (English), chapter 16, section 8
  64. ^ Proposition 2001/02:59, Hets mot folkgrupp, m.m., chapter 5
  65. ^ a b Judgment of the Supreme Court of Sweden in the Åke Green case[dead link]
  66. ^ Lag om hets mot folkgrupp innefattar homosexuella[dead link]
  67. ^ "The Local, 29 Nov 2005: Åke Green cleared over gay sermon". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  68. ^ "Basel verbiete jede Diffamierung von Juden und Judentum" (PDF) (in German). Vienna: Die Stimme - Jüdische Zeitung. 14 December 1934. Retrieved 12 November 2009. 
  69. ^ Public Order Act 1986
  70. ^ Text of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  71. ^ Text of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  72. ^ Text of the Amendment to Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  73. ^ Text of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (England and Wales) as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  74. ^ Text of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  75. ^ "Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill". The Scottish Parliament. Retrieved 31 August 2013. 
  76. ^ see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, notable for the "positive liberty" interpetation.
  77. ^ Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942)
  78. ^ Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, at 447 (1969)
  79. ^ R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), 505 U.S. 377
  80. ^ It should be noted that SCOTUS will uphold a law that punishes hate violence as an aggravating factor in the normal sentencing guidelines. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) a gang of black youths beat up a white teenager because he was white. The Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin law that considering the hate based crime in an assault as an aggravating factor is not in contravention of the first amendment.
  81. ^ "Facts and Case Summary: Snyder v. Phelps". Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  82. ^ Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
  83. ^ See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).
  84. ^ "Free speech on public college campuses", Kermit L. Hall, First Amendment Center, 13 September 2002
  85. ^ See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995).
  86. ^ "Harassment policies in the university", Alan Charles Kors, Society, vol.28, no.4 (May/June 1991), pp.22-30, Springer, ISSN:0147-2011 (Print), ISSN:1936-4725 (Online)
  87. ^ Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes, Report to Congress, J L Gattuso; B Harris; C E Mattey; C A Nila; and T Sloan, NCJ 157948, National Telecommunication and Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce, 1993, 84 pp.]
  88. ^ National Hispanic Media Coalition, website. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
  89. ^ National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) Petition for Inquiry in the Matter of Hate Speech in the Media, before the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 28 January 2009
  90. ^ “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study”, January 2009
  91. ^ "Hate Speech in the Media", a funded project of the Social Science Research Council, Primary Investigators: Chon A. Noriega and Francisco Javier Iribarren, University of California-Los Angeles, in partnership with the National Hispanic Media Coalition
  92. ^ Comments of the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), in the matter of Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age (GN docket no. 10-25), before the US Federal Communications Commission, 7 May 2010

External links[edit]