Hate speech restricts group activity.
vera! at QUICKWEB.COM.PH
Thu Nov 25 04:41:57 PST 1999
I agree that it's possible for hate speech to restrict a group's participation in
society, including the exercise of free speech. I also agree that this situation must
be examined on a case-to-case basis. In the light of Michael McConnell's seeking
evidence of this restriction, I think that the courts may restrict hate speech only if
there is evidence of such restriction. Hence, in my first e-mail, I mentioned that
this was also subject to the actual, historical, social climate/situation. A larger
group can put up with more antagonistic speech than a smaller one.
Michael McConnell wrote:
> Rico Liwanag writes:
> > Hate speech may impact not only on "equal liberties" but also on freedom
> > of speech itself. Owen Fiss of Yale says that hate speech is restricted
> > because it discourages the target group from participating in the
> > deliberative activities of society. They feel less entitled and less
> > inclined to voice their views in the public square, and withdraw unto
> > themselves. It is as if the state intervened to silence them.
> Is there any empirical evidence to support this? (I mean that as a
> serious question, not as a rhetorical question.) My casual
> observation suggests the opposite: that there is nothing like a hate
> speech incident to stimulate massive, organized response from the
> victim group and their allies. Indeed, I sometimes offer this as an
> argument for allowing hate speech, that it reminds us of the
> persistence of bigotry, and thus keeps us on guard.
> -- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)
More information about the Conlawprof