Extreme Speech and Democracy
Ivan Hare, James Weinstein
OUP Oxford, Nov 18, 2010 - Law - 647 pages
A commitment to free speech is a fundamental precept of all liberal democracies. However, democracies can differ significantly when addressing the constitutionality of laws regulating certain kinds of speech. In the United States, for instance, the commitment to free speech under the First Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court to protect the public expression of the most noxious racist ideology and hence to render unconstitutional even narrow restrictions on hate speech. Incontrast, governments have been accorded considerable leeway to restrict racist and other extreme expression in almost every other democracy, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and other European countries. This book considers the legal responses of various liberal democracies towards hate speechand other forms of extreme expression, and examines the following questions:What accounts for the marked differences in attitude towards the constitutionality of hate speech regulation?Does hate speech regulation violate the core free speech principle constitutive of democracy?Has the traditional US position on extreme expression justifiably not found favour elsewhere?Do values such as the commitment to equality or dignity legitimately override the right to free speech in some circumstances?With contributions from experts in a range of disciplines, this book offers an in-depth examination of the tensions that arise between democracy's promises.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Table of Cases
Table of Legislation
Table of Conventions and International Instruments
List of Contributors
Free Speech Democracy and the Suppression of Extreme Speech Past and Present
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Other editions - View all
accessed 23 July Al-Muhajiroun Amendment American antisemitic applied argued argument Article belief blasphemy broadcast civil Code context Convention conviction crime criminal criticism cultural debate decision democracy democratic discourse ethics discrimination discussion doctrine ECHR EHRR encouragement equality ethnic Europe European Court example extreme speech extremist free speech freedom of expression freedom of speech French gender genocide harm hate speech bans headscarf-hijab Holocaust denial homosexuality Human Rights Ibid ICCPR ideas identity individual insulting International Islamic issue Jewish Jews jurisprudence Justice justify last accessed 23 legislation liberal liberal democracy liberty minorities Muslim norms Ofcom offence one’s opinion parties person political principle prohibition prosecution protection public discourse Public Order Act racial hatred racist radical reason regulation religion religious hatred requires restrictions sexual orientation social society statements suppression Supreme Court terrorism Terrorism Act 2006 terrorist United United Kingdom violation violence women