Week 7: Should we have laws? Flashcards
Waldron: On Hate speech
We should protect from hate speech to the point that promotes hate towards a particular group. He does not believe that the regulations should be so strict as to protect from hurt feelings. It should protect from discrimination that portrays them as less than equal. Targets particular groups. Feelings of offence don’t count.
Public signs can display messages to other non-minorities that this group is unwelcome. He believes the point of hate speech is to instill these messages that we do not tolerate this group as a community. —People believe that there is nothing to be regulated because of free speech laws and they uphold these standards so highly that it should be their given right to express these feelings regardless of the messages they instill. He argues that the public good of inclusiveness is at stake. People should be able to go about their business without fear of violence or discrimination and mistreatment. Hate speech undermines this public good. Awakens past events. Threat to social piece.
We are supposed to benefit from free speech, but it can disadvantage minorities in many manners. It offers a confirmation that the minorities are members of this society. International law also requires that any hate speech that that advocates racial discrimination and hatred/ hostility and violence shall be prohibited by law.
Dworkin: Popular Sovereignty and speech
Popular sovereignty: In democracy, people are the ultimate right to political authority. They must be able to speak on all matters of public concern openly. If this is not the case, the government would be the ultimate sovereignty, not the people. Restricting speech is often the result of societal demands.
Dworkin: Individual right of political participation:
Each of us differs in terms of talents, but we are all of equal moral rights. Free and equal participation is vital to the legitimacy of the legal system. If the government disagrees with the speaker, because it is too dangerous or disturbing, would lack legitimacy. Gov is responsible for treating each member of the polity as an equal and by regulating hate speech they are not achieving this. It is no longer legitimate.
Dworkin: Two components of democracy
there are 2 essential components of democracy: sovereignty, and individual right or participation have the right of every citizen to participate in the discussion. There should be restrictions on speech in the public service sphere, but not in any sort of public sphere. Search for truth promotion of individual autonomy. Does not say free speech is needed to hurl insults
2 kinds of hate speech in the Canadian legislature
-Entices hatred against any group where the enticement is likely to breach peace.
Willful promotion of hatred: Everyone communicating statements other than in private promotes hatred against some group. Does not have to be connected to a breech of peace. Their standings as equals are undermined.
