Hate speech restricts group activity.

[Eric Vera]

Dear Rico,

  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.

Eric

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)