no

No / Traditional Millian theory posits that free speech is the most important mechanism to achieve a greater tolerance of difference and thus create a dynamic marketplace for truth to flourish. In responding to maledictive hate, theorists such as Gelber (2002) and Butler (1997) have recommended that marginalized speech actors engage with a process of speaking back, of returning the gaze to make perpetrators¿ contributions to the marketplace of ideas marginal and aberrant. However, as will be demonstrated by an analysis of maledictive force and effects, the ideal speech situations of communicative action theory, and the recasting of terms of abuse by ¿speaking back¿, require both rational speech actors ¿something clearly absent in many acts of maledictive hate¿and an institutional validation of the authenticity of marginalized subjects and their speech. Constructing new truths in the marketplace of ideas is both socially and politically contingent. As such, the capacity for marginalized subjects to contribute to the marketplace rests on their ability to be able to speak with authority and to be authorized to speak.

Free speech and free expression are values that are highly prized in western society. The mention of removing or altering that right creates great debate. In 2004 a Select Committee was set up to inquire into what New Zealand's stance on Hate Speech should be. The submissions to that committee made it clear that free expression was a highly held right in New Zealand. While the submitters were overwhelming opposed to any legislation, it was clear that many had no understanding of what hate speech was, and why people would want to restrict it. The select Committee needed to provide the public with more information about what was intended and what the international situation is. If nothing else this thesis should provide that comprehensive background information to ground any further debate. This thesis makes a policy recommendation for the New Zealand Government. The policy that is examined and contrasted with international experiences is that of hate speech legislation. What should New Zealand do in regards to hate speech? The general debate is examined and the free expression versus legislation debate is analysed to provide a comprehensive background to the topic. The reasons why free expression is important to society and democracy are examined. Alongside free expression, the harms of hate speech are also analysed in order to demonstrate what harm occurs and if such harms should be legislated against. The international situation is contrasted with the New Zealand experience. The legislation of the United States, Canada and Australia, is analysed in order to compare and contrast with New Zealand's legislation. These three countries are closely aligned with New Zealand in terms of language, politics and culture. These countries provide equivalent characteristics and are therefore the most useful for comparison. The United States is especially important as it has no hate speech legislation and provides a valuable baseline from which the effects of legislation can be compared against. The New Zealand situation is then examined to point out its strengths and weaknesses. Where there are weaknesses this thesis recommends changes that could be made in varying political circumstances. Hate speech and free speech issues are not largely discussed in New Zealand literature and scholarly work. This thesis follows some work that has been previously done on the topic in New Zealand. The bulk of the work written about hate speech and free speech issues has been completed internationally and needs to be adjusted to fit the New Zealand situation. This recommendation has gone some way to doing that. An area of particular interest in this paper is the categories of people that deserve protection. Historically just 'race' has been provided protection from hate speech in New Zealand and this thesis examines why. Central to this investigation is why other categories are not protected.

no / This paper analyses the verbal and textual hostility employed by rioters, politicians and the media in Sydney (Australia) in December 2005 in the battle over Sutherland Shire¿s Cronulla Beach. By better understanding the linguistic conventions underlying all forms of maledictive hate, we are better able to address the false antimonies between free speech and the regulation of speech. It is also argued that understanding the harms of hate speech provides us with the tools necessary to create a more responsive framework for criminalising some forms of hate speech as a preliminary process in reducing or eliminating hate violence.

This paper explores vilification in the popular counterterrorism show, Fox’s "24." A critical, in-depth analysis of three prominent antagonists from the show illustrates the different ways in which they are vilified. Each of the three characters is examined to understand which type of villain he or she embodies in "24," which of the show’s moral codes the villain affronts, and how he or she is punished or treated as a result. The analysis considers the broadcast of the show’s first six seasons in relation to neoconservative and Christian Right values that characterized the George W. Bush administration after 9/11. It finds that the show’s characterizations of all three villains—an Islamic extremist, a femme fatale, and a shirking bureaucrat—reinforce dominant xenophobic, patriarchal, and hypermasculine values, which underscored the Bush administration’s war on terror.

In the perilous waters of the Mediterranean Sea, migrants find themselves facing limited choices when in distress. Their options are stark: either to rely on the lifesaving efforts of Non- Governmental Organisations (NGO) aid workers conducting Search and Rescue (SAR) Operations, to be intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG) and subsequently detained in Libya where their human rights are gravely violated, or to face the tragic fate of perishing at sea. Unfortunately, the criminalisation of SAR Operations, spearheaded by NGO aid workers, hinders the rescue of migrants, thereby exacerbating the risks they face and leaving them vulnerable to interception by the LCG. This interception, as argued in this thesis, inevitably leads to the perpetration of Crimes Against Humanity (CAH) against these vulnerable migrants. This thesis sheds light on the issue of Italy’s increasing criminalisation and vilification of humanitarian aid workers engaged in SAR missions in the Mediterranean Sea. It critically examines the consequences of such criminalisation on the lives and rights of migrants, exploring the complex dynamics between SAR Operations, interception by the LCG, and the commission of CAH. Drawing upon a comprehensive lens of interpretation that integrates legal analysis, human rights principles, and the international legal framework, this study concludes that criminalisation of SAR operations is indeed a contributing factor towards the CAH faced by migrants in Libya. Moreover, it identifies the potential liability of Italian State Officials (ISO) at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for their role in enacting legislations that effectively criminalises SAR operations.