Hate speech and freedom of expression

Question 1

Expression

Answer 1

1. All forms of verbal communication
2. Printed or visual media, artwork, music, social media

Question 2

Three conditions of hateful expression

Answer 2

1. Single out individual or group based on social characteristics (race, gender)
2. Contains offensive quality or denigration
3. Cast its target as unwelcome presence and an object of hostility

Question 3

Harm condition

Answer 3

The negative impact on the victims who are at risk of harm as a result of incitement

Question 4

Climate of hate

Answer 4

A social environment in which a member of some group experiences the loathing and animosity of others, who perceive themselves to be morally superior to them, and who fail to show appropriate concern for their fate.

Question 5

Harm argument for restricting hate speech

Answer 5

• M: state should place obstacles in front of conduct that contributes to others suffering harm
• E: hate speech contributes to others suffering harm
• C: state should restrict hate speech

Question 6

Arguments pro freedom of expression

Answer 6

1. Harms of hate speech is a price we must pay to value an individual’s freedom of speech (autonomy)
2. Critics might claim that it’s a problem to give states these regulatory powers

Question 7

Autonomy

Answer 7

An individual enjoys autonomy if and only if they’re the author of their own life. It’s an individual’s responsibility to make judgments about the merits of the views to which they’re exposed.

Question 8

Autonomy argument

+ problems

Answer 8

• M: state should place obstacles in front of conduct that contributes to others suffering harm, unless this would violate the interest an individual has in being sovereign in deciding what to believe and how to act
• E: restricting hate speech violates an individual’s interest in being sovereign in deciding what to believe and how to act
• C: state shouldn’t restrict hate speech

Problems with this argument:
- While it’s true that an individual has an interest in autonomy, they also have an interest in not suffering harm
- Hate speech has the effect of enhancing individuals’ implicit biases

Question 9

Problems with state regulation

(Pro freedom of expression)

(3 factors)

Answer 9

1. Fallible: well-intentioned state officials can make honest mistakes about what kinds of regulations on expression best serve the interests we’ve identified
2. Regulatory chill: certain restrictions on expression cause individuals to be less expressive in domains that aren’t covered by the restrictions
3. Abuse of power: occurs when states enjoy the legal authority to extend restrictions on expression beyond what’s morally justifiable

Question 10

Freedom of expression argument

Answer 10

• M: The state should protect an individual’s interests in being sovereign in deciding what to believe, as well as individuals’ interests as speakers, audiences, and thinkers
• E: Given the dangers of fallibility, regulatory chill, and abuse of power, an individual’s interests are better served if the state doesn’t place obstacles in front of expression
• C: state should’t restrict hate speech

Question 11

Offensive speech argument

Answer 11

• M: the state should place obstacles in front of conduct that causes offesce
• E: hate speech causes offense
• C: state should restrict hate speech

Question 12

Dignity

Answer 12

An individual lives with dignity when they have morals standing equal to that of others, and some argue that the state should restrict hate speech when and because it threatens this equal moral standing. An individual lives with dignity when they’re regarded by others as an equal member of their community, and so entitled to respect and equal protection under the law.

Question 13

Dignity argument

Answer 13

• M: state should place obstacles in front of conduct that threatens dignity
• E: hate speech threatens dignity
• C: state should restrict hate speech