Are campus movements concerning free speech—from Berkeley in the 1960s to the campaign against political correctness today—really about speech? Are movements really concerned with civil liberties on campus or are their calls for free speech excited by partisan motives? While free speech movements are never purely driven by civil libertarian concerns, they should not be considered simply partisan either. Campus speech movements have frequently united activists across the ideological spectrum, which suggests that these movements aren’t only sectarian in nature. It also confirms that these movements are in fact about speech, because those advocating for it have a wide range of motives, but free speech is the point of agreement. However, this is not to say that there aren’t ulterior partisan underpinnings in these pushes for free speech.

The legal restriction of hate speech – i.e. speech that expresses contempt for people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or sexuality – is now commonplace in liberal legal systems outside the United States. This thesis takes up the question of whether restrictions on hate speech are generally justifiable. I begin by explaining why liberals should not dismiss anti-hate speech law from the outset as an intolerable violation of free speech. My analysis of the case for anti-hate speech law is thereafter framed by two main concerns. Firstly, I stress that if we are to impose legal restrictions on hate speech, we must establish not just that there are harmful outcomes associated with hate speech, but that those who engage in hate speech are responsible for those outcomes. Secondly, I argue that restrictions on hate speech should be assessed in two distinct classes. Inquiries into the justificatory bases of anti-hate speech law are typically conducted as if informative generalisations can be made about how the law should respond to anything that is properly called hate speech. Against this approach, I argue that while the liberal state can and should impose restrictions on directly harmful hate speech (in which hate speech is used to threaten, harass, and incite violence), restrictions on indirectly harmful hate speech – in which hate speech (allegedly) contributes to identity-based social hierarchies and their concomitant harms – are not justifiable. The problem with restrictions on indirectly harmful hate speech is not the structure of the liability-ascription framework under which they operate. Rather, I argue, the problem is epistemic: we cannot confidently judge that hate-speakers are in fact responsible for contributing, more than trivially, to the harmful patterns of identity-based inequality and disadvantage in light of which restrictions on indirectly harmful hate speech may be defended in principle.

No description available.

Este trabalho debate o significado da liberdade de expressão à luz da teoria política normativa e da instrumentalidade dessa liberdade para a política democrática. Como instrumento da democracia, a liberdade de palavra costuma ser justificada com base na sustentação de dois objetivos: primeiramente, o de promover um debate público robusto e diversificado; em segundo lugar, o de ser um veículo para a realização da igualdade política. Os defensores da perspectiva que aqui analisamos chamada de coletivista-- afirmam que a realização desses objetivos só é possível se a liberdade de expressão é institucionalizada 1)levando em conta não só os interesses expressivos dos indivíduos (seu direito de falar), mas também os interesses expressivos do demos (o interesse a ter acesso a um conjunto diversificado de discursos); e, 2) superando o entendimento da liberdade de expressão como liberdade que se garante exclussivamente contra o Estado. Ao abrir as portas para a discussão de problemas como o estabelecimento de mecanismos de acesso aos meios de comunicação de massa, o poder corrosivo do dinheiro sobre a deliberação pública e os efeitos de expressões de ódio sobre a igualdade política, a teoria coletivista sobre a liberdade de expressão dá ensejo a uma reflexão sobre os diversos significado da igualdade na arena pública. / This thesis debates the significance of freedom of speech as a problem of normative political theory and as an instrument of democratic politics. Under this light, free speech is commonly justified as a way toward two specific goals: promoting a strong and diversified public deliberation and promoting political equality among the citizens. The perspective we consider here --called collectivistsays that unless we are prepeared to consider free speech not only as a negative liberty, but as a positive one, and thet unless free speech is understood not only as as a right of individuals (interest in speaking), but also as right of the community (interest in hearing diverse points of view), its goals will not be achievable. Discussing themes like acces to the media, the corrosive moneys effects on public deliberation and the effects of hate speech on political equility, the collectivist theory reflects on the meanings equiality at the political forum.

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.

This dissertation investigates the broad area of social hate discourse. It interrogates the intersections between sexuality and race, and in particular, the intersections between the practices of antisemitism and heterosexism in New South Wales. Using a specifically designed database (Tracking Violence), 1227 complaint files from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, the Lesbian and Gay Anti-Violence Project and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry lodged between 1995 and 1999 were analysed for the features common to antisemitic and heterosexist maledictive hate. Of particular interest to this dissertation is the text and context of malediction, and whether the regulation of maledictive hate is an appropriate strategy in the elimination and prevention of hate violence.

Justifications for campaign finance regulations in the United States have traditionally taken one of two approaches. The first and most common has been to allege that unrestricted campaign contributions and expenditures lend themselves to corruption, or to the appearance of corruption. The second, used far less often than the first, has argued that unchecked spending on an election compromises the principle of political equality--the idea that each individual should have equal say in the democratic process. This paper defends political equality as a value worth preserving, demonstrates that our current campaign finance system is dangerous to political equality, proposes some solutions to that problem, and evaluate the constitutionality of those solutions.

Freedom of speech has been a well discussed subject. Great philosophers and theoretics like Plato, Voltaire, Locke and Mill have again and again showed the importance of freedom of speech. Since the world have become bystanders to a series of events that can only classify as crimes aganst freedom of speech, it has become more important to study the phenomenon and analyse it. By finding cases where the freedom of speech has been compromised and analyse them in frames of three different theories, the argument of truth, the argument of democracy and the argument of tolerance, this paper makes the boundaries of freedom of speech a little clearer, and also makes a discussion about how reasonable the boundaries are possible. Everything according to the three theories.

This study analyzes the rationale used by the Supreme Court in the 2010 case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The majority opinion and dissent were dissected and scrutinized for any weaknesses. After careful review and comparison with First Amendment theories and scholarly articles, it was found that the majority opinion and final decision were poorly reasoned and created a dangerous political communication landscape and a weakened Marketplace of Ideas.

This dissertation investigates the broad area of social hate discourse. It interrogates the intersections between sexuality and race, and in particular, the intersections between the practices of antisemitism and heterosexism in New South Wales. Using a specifically designed database (Tracking Violence), 1227 complaint files from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, the Lesbian and Gay Anti-Violence Project and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry lodged between 1995 and 1999 were analysed for the features common to antisemitic and heterosexist maledictive hate. Of particular interest to this dissertation is the text and context of malediction, and whether the regulation of maledictive hate is an appropriate strategy in the elimination and prevention of hate violence.