Free Speech, Terrorism, and European Security: Defining and Defending the Political Community

Boyne, Shawn Marie

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1591806

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Section 111 of the Federal Criminal Code prohibits the public incitement to criminal behaviour. 130 Since the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) is highly protective of the freedom of speech, 131 convictions for this offence are rather rare. To be convicted, a person must be directly inciting the commission of certain offenses.…”

Section: Germany 1 Criminal Law Provisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative research study on radical and extremist (hate) speakers in European Member States

Noorloos¹,

Belavusau²,

Boutin³

et al. 2019

ICCT Research Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of the proliferation of extremist hate speech in Europe in recent years, legislative provisions have been enacted that inevitably resulted in potentially substantial limitations on the right to freedom of speech. A number of individuals have been subjected to onerous administrative measures in relation to their speech – sometimes after a criminal conviction, sometimes in the absence of criminal law action. Thus, the question of proportionality has inevitably arisen – to what extent can a state legitimately and justifiably restrict the right to freedom of expression in the interests of national security? To put it differently, in respecting its broader social obligation to ensure and preserve security, how much should a state qualify the right to freedom of expression? In addressing these questions, this comparative report will first outline in more detail the applicable international and regional legal obligations and relevant case law in Sections 1 and 2 respectively. Section 3 will focus on the following countries – Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France and the United Kingdom – with particular emphasis on domestic legislative provisions, jurisprudence and national strategies specifically adopted to respond to the risks posed by extreme speakers. It should be noted at the outset that the United Kingdom has legislated against extreme and radical speech within its counter-terrorism legislation. The report will conclude a list of conclusions and closing remarks based on the impact of these domestic practices and legal responses on the right to freedom of expression.

show abstract

Section: Germany 1 Criminal Law Provisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative research study on radical and extremist (hate) speakers in European Member States

Noorloos¹,

Belavusau²,

Boutin³

et al. 2019

ICCT Research Paper

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In practice and on paper, this arrangement stands in contrast to the free speech paradigm inscribed in the French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, which asserts that statutes can limit the extent of free speech, while the First Amendment of the US Constitution "categorically rejects this possibility with two words -"no law" [can prohibit free speech]" (Zoller, 2009). In the context of studying responses to "new terrorism" -for which one of the primary proliferatory mechanisms are physical and online propaganda -the above constitutional provision combined with the jurisprudence stemming from it offer an important takeaway: the US government "may not regulate expression that advocates the use of force or the violation of the law" unless it can be proven that such expression is intended to incite imminent unlawful action (Boyne, 2009). It is through this distinction that the US and France have produced widely different outcomes.…”

Section: Jurisprudencementioning

confidence: 99%

Restrictions on Expression as a Counter-Terror Policy in th e United States and France: Divergence by Design or Curious Convergence?

Bozinovic¹

2018

URCEU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A robust liberal tradition inspired by John Stuart Mill's theories argues that Freedom of Speech, as a constitutional right, is granted with superior protection against State regulatory interference, despite possible conflicts with morality 1 . However, most European countries have introduced hate speech regulations to reframe that privilege, sanctioning verbal and nonverbal hate attacks similarly when they share analogous severity and degrading intention and create comparable consequences 2 – 4 . Legal theorists are not the only ones to disagree on the extent to which speech should be punished: philosophers, legislators, politicians, activists, and citizens are highly divided on the issue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ordinary citizens are more severe towards verbal than nonverbal hate-motivated incidents with identical consequences

Zapata

Deroy

2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do we judge hate incidents similarly when they are performed using words or bodily actions? Hate speech incidents are rarely reported by bystanders, and whether or how much they should be punished remains a matter of legal, theoretical and social disagreement. In a pre-registered study (N = 1309), participants read about verbal and nonverbal attacks stemming from identical hateful intent, which created the same consequences for the victims. We asked them how much punishment the perpetrator should receive, how likely they would be to denounce such an incident and how much harm they judged the victim suffered. The results contradicted our pre-registered hypotheses and the predictions of dual moral theories, which hold that intention and harmful consequences are the sole psychological determinants of punishment. Instead, participants consistently rated verbal hate attacks as more deserving of punishment, denunciation and being more harmful to the victim than nonverbal attacks. This difference is explained by the concept of action aversion, suggesting that lay observers have different intrinsic associations with interactions involving words compared to bodily actions, regardless of consequences. This explanation has implications for social psychology, moral theories, and legislative efforts to sanction hate speech, which are considered. Protocol registration The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 29/06/2022. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z86TV.

show abstract

Free Speech, Terrorism, and European Security: Defining and Defending the Political Community

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

A comparative research study on radical and extremist (hate) speakers in European Member States

A comparative research study on radical and extremist (hate) speakers in European Member States

Restrictions on Expression as a Counter-Terror Policy in th e United States and France: Divergence by Design or Curious Convergence?

Ordinary citizens are more severe towards verbal than nonverbal hate-motivated incidents with identical consequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About