`Hate Speech' and `First Amendment Absolutism' Discourses in the US

Abstract

This article argues that the First Amendment to the US Constitution, seen inside and outside the USA as a historical high water-mark of discursive freedom, has suffered from an ideological refusal to acknowledge its dangerous implications for the growth of hate speech, whether against people of color or other subordinated groups. This refusal has led in turn to a virtual vacuum in intelligently conceived strategies to combat hate speech. First, issues in the `absolutist' position are reviewed, and then four problems are discussed in greater depth: the actual remit of the First Amendment in practice; its international reference points; whether `race' is the only vector at stake; and the deficiency of purely legal conceptualizations of the issue. The article continues with a brief note on critical legal theory and critical `race' theory, and concludes by considering two different angles of vision on the subject, one that of appropriate, sociologically informed administrative responses to hate speech within an institution, the other Charles Husband's statement of the need to plan for the `right to be understood' within a multi-ethnic public sphere.

The Medium Shapes the Message: McLuhan and Grice Revisited in Race Talk Online

“…Line 1 represents an ‘abuse of freedom of speech’ theme noted among the anti‐Paul Henry themes in TA, previously identified in debate about the first amendment of the US constitution and whether it is more important than limiting ‘hate speech’ (Downing, ).…”

A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech

“…There are, of course, exceptions, three of which are Reddy (2002), Whillock and Slayden (1995), and Downing (1999). Reddy's definition of hate speech reflects the specific concern of his article, namely, homophobic discourse in Africa: '.…”

“…Rather, in their Introduction they offer general principles and characteristics of hate speech. In response, Downing (1999) criticizes Whillock and Slayden for having too broad a scope. While applauding them for broadening the discussion of hate speech from a narrow discussion about race and ethnicity, he nevertheless asserts that they 'overshoot the mark' (p. 181).…”

Freedom of expression as liberal fantasy: the debate over The People vs. Larry Flynt

“…Our (Americans') freedom of expression is one of the 'facts' that proves our liberty as citizens and, relatedly, the felt superiority of our political community (Downing, 1999;Schauer, 1995). Freedom of expression is often understood in the US as our most basic, and long-lasting freedom -and one that defines our liberalism.…”

“…The desire to see speech rights in terms of the individual and of the speaker (rather than in terms of a public good, for example) is ideological in itself (Allen, 1995;Downing, 1999), a willed fantasy of the political community as one composed of equals in face-to-face dialogue with one another. This is a vision that fails to describe the way politics (and culture) function in large-scale societies.…”