Hate Speech – Limits of Freedom of Speech – Let the Discussions Begin!

Sometimes the so called legal and journalism experts on national media behave as if there is no limit to free speech. There have been laws against obscenity, flag burning and obviously against hate speech. Now, more than ever before, as we are living in a global village, we need an honest and free dialogue and debate about limits of free speech. Let the Discussions Begin!  I have the pleasure to start the discussion with a verse of the Holy Quran:

Allah likes not the uttering of unseemly speech in public, except on the part of one who is being wronged. Indeed, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (Al Quran 4:149)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
General forms
Specific forms
Discrimination portal

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation, [3][4] or other characteristic.[5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.

Critics have argued that the term “hate speech” is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]



The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”.[10] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.[11] On 3 May 2011, Michael O’Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of “hate speech” do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20.[12] Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[13]


Australia‘s hate speech laws vary by jurisdiction, and seek especially to prevent victimisation on account of race.


The Belgian Anti-Racism Law, in full, the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts inspired by Racism or Xenophobia, is a law against hate speech and discrimination passed by the Federal Parliament of Belgium in 1981 which made certain acts motivated by racism or xenophobia illegal. It is also known as the Moureaux Law.

The Belgian Holocaust denial law, passed on 23 March 1995, bans public Holocaust denial. Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly “deny, play down, justify or approve of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War“. Prosecution is led by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines of up to 2500 EUR.


In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are “imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused”.[14] In 2006, a joint-action between the Federal Police and the Argentine police has cracked down several hate-related websites. However, some of these sites have recently reappeared—the users have re-created the same sites on United States’ domains. The federal police have asked permission from the FBI to crack down these sites, but the FBI denied, stating that the First Amendment guarantees the right to any speech, even if it involves racism.[citation needed]


In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any ‘identifiable group’ is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An ‘identifiable group’ is defined as ‘any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.’ It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).


Article 31 of the “Ley sobre Libertades de Opinión e Información y Ejercicio del Periodismo” (statute on freedom of opinion and information and the performance of journalism), punishes with a high fine those who “through any means of social communication makes publications or transmissions intended to promote hatred or hostility towards persons or a group of persons due to their race, sex, religion or nationality”.[17] This norm has been applied to expressions proffered through the internet.[18] There is also a rule aggravating the penalties of crimes when they are motivated by discriminatory hatred.

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.


Croatian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Croatian penal code prohibits and punishes anyone “who based on differences of race, religion, language, political or any other belief, wealth, birth, education, social status or other properties, gender, skin color, nationality or ethnicity violates basic human rights and freedoms recognized from international community”.[19]


Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements by which a group is threatened (trues), insulted (forhånes) or degraded (nedværdiges) due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[20]


There has been considerable debate over the definition of “hate speech” (vihapuhe) in the Finnish language.[21][22]

If “hate speech” is taken to mean ethnic agitation, it is prohibited in Finland and defined in the section 11 of the penal code, War crimes and crimes against humanity, as publishing data, an opinion or other statement that threatens or insults a group on basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or any comparable basis. Ethnic agitation is punishable with a fine or up to 2 years in prison, or 4 months to 4 years if aggravated (such as incitement to genocide).[23]

Critics claim that, in political contexts, labeling certain opinions and statements “hate speech” can be used to silence unfavorable or critical opinions and play down debate. Certain politicians, including Member of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho, consider the term “hate speech” problematic because of the lack of an easy definition.[22]


France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).[24]


In Germany, Volksverhetzung (“incitement of popular hatred”) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany’s criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups “maggots” or “freeloaders”. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code’s Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).


In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:

Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years. (The word “assault” in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)


India prohibits any manner of expression which someone might consider insulting to his religion or which for whatever reason might disturb public tranquility.[dubiousdiscuss][citation needed] Under article 19(2) of the constitution of India certain “reasonable restrictions” can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”[25]


In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i), however, this is only an implied right provided that liberty of expression “shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State”.[26] The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are “threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred” against “a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.”[27][28]


Several Jordanian laws seek to prevent the publication or dissemination of material that would provoke strife or hatred:[29]

  • Article 6 of Act No. 76 of 2009 regulating publicity and advertising in municipal areas states: (a) The following shall be deemed an infringement of this regulation: (i) The inclusion in publicity or advertisements of material that offends national or religious sentiment or public morals or that is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The publicization of ideas based on racial superiority, racial hatred and the instigation of racial discrimination against any person or group constitute punishable offences.
  • Article 20 of the Audiovisual Media Act No. 71 of 2002 states: “The licensee shall not broadcast or rebroadcast any material that is likely to provoke confessional and interethnic strife, to undermine national unity or to instigate terrorism, racism or religious intolerance or to damage domestic relations in the Kingdom.”
  • Article 7 of the Printing and Publications Act No. 8 of 1998 sets out the ethical rules that apply to journalism and the conduct of journalists. It is illegal to publish material likely to stir up hatred or to make propaganda with a view to setting citizens against one another.
  • Article 40(a)(iv) of the Print and Publications Act No. 10 of 1993 states that it is prohibited to publish articles that are likely to jeopardize national unity, incite others to commit crimes, stir up hostility, and foment hatred, division and discord between members of society.


The Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal code is as follows:

  • Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[30]
  • Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[31]

In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, for breaching articles 137c and 137d.[32] On 23 June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges.[33]

New Zealand

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute “threatening, abusive, or insulting…matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons…on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons.” Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which “racial disharmony” creates liability.


Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual orientation, religion or philosophy of life.[34]


The hate speech laws in Poland punish those who offend the feelings of the religious by e.g. disturbing a religious ceremony or creating public calumny. They also prohibit public expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation.[35]


The Serbian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but restricts it in certain cases to protect human rights. The criminal charge of “Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance” carries a minimum six months prison term and a maximum of ten years.[36]


Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. The Penal Code criminalizes the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion. It also makes it an offence for anyone to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.

South Africa

In South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 contains the following clause:

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―

  1. be hurtful;
  2. be harmful or to incite harm;
  3. promote or propagate hatred.[37]

The “prohibited grounds” include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

The crime of crimen injuria (“unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another”)[38] may also be used to prosecute hate speech.[39]

In 2011, a South African court banned “Dubulu iBhunu (Shoot the Boer),” a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred.[40]


Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[41][42] The crime doesn’t prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.[43]. There are constiutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights.[44].

The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,[45] was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke Green of hate speech based on a 2003 sermon. His conviction was later overturned.[46][44]


In Switzerland public discrimination or invoking to rancor against persons or a group of people because of their race, ethnicity, is getting penalized with a term of imprisonment until 3 years or a mulct. In 1934, the authorities of the Basel-Stadt canton criminalized anti-Jewish hate speech, e.g. the accusation of ritual murders, mostly in reaction against a pro-nazi antisemitic group and newspaper, the Volksbund.[47]


In Thailand hate speech (การสื่อสารซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชัง or การพูดซึ่งมีเจตนาทางเกลียดชังให้เกิดการเกลียดชังอีกฝ่ายหนึ่ง), transliterated as เฮทสปีช, is prohibited in civil and criminal statutes, but state machinery and society as a whole generally do little to prevent it or prosecute parties promoting or engaging in hate speech. While the Thai State offers recourse in the courts to obtain satisfaction after the fact, Thai authorities, NGOs and others generally offer little or no protection in preventing hate speech. The country’s strict defamation laws are more designed to protect reputations and the institution of the monarchy and not to protect individuals or groups in freely exercising legitimate rights.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[48] [49][50][51][52][53][54] Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches, does not criminalise jokes about peoples’ beliefs, nor outlaw “harsh” comment about their religious faith.[citation needed]

United States

In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[55] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[56][57][58][59]

The “reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey.”[60] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[61] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[62]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating “hate speech” by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a “hostile or offensive working environment” for other employees.[63][64]

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted “speech codes” regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[65] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[66] Debate over restriction of “hate speech” in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[67]

NTIA report

In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. Study findings revealed only a few instances during the past decade in which broadcast facilities were used to spread messages of hate and bigotry. In two such instances, radio broadcasts arguably urged an audience to commit hate-motivated crimes. In other instances, radio broadcast licensees aired programming that evidenced prejudice. A few highly publicized cable television programs promoted messages of hate and bigotry. In some cases, cable programming stirred community reaction and was followed by counterprogramming. During the 1980s, computer bulletin boards were established by various white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, but many fell into disuse later in the decade. The study also found that hate “hotlines” are used to deliver recorded messages of bigotry and prejudice and that telephones can be used to intimidate, threaten, and harass individuals and organizations. NTIA’s research suggests that hate messages represent a very small percentage of electronic communications media and that the best response is public education rather than government censorship and regulation. Legal remedies involving the use of telecommunications to commit or encourage hate crimes are discussed, as well as technologies that can protect or empower targets of hate speech.[68] A list of commenters is appended. 285 footnotes

In 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes.” This report gave one of the first definitions by government on hate speech. According to NTIA hate speech is:

  • Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
  • Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.

Hate speech in media

In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC)[69], a not for profit organization with a mission to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a three prong strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[70] The petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center (CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study” was also released in January, 2009.[71][72]

“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.

  • False facts
  • Flawed argumentation
  • Divisive language
  • Dehumanizing metaphors

In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.[73] Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.

See also


  1. ^ Definitions for “hate speech”, Dictionary.com. Retrieved 25 June 2011
  2. ^ Nockleby, John T. (2000), “Hate Speech,” in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, vol. 3. (2nd ed.), Detroit: Macmillan Reference US, pp. 1277-1279. Cited in “Library 2.0 and the Problem of Hate Speech,” by Margaret Brown-Sica and Jeffrey Beall, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, vol. 9 no. 2 (Summer 2008).
  3. ^ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/146
  4. ^ An Activist’s Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles; p125 by Yogyakarta Principles in Action
  5. ^ Kinney, Terry A. (2008). “Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms”. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Blackwell Reference Online. doi:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
  6. ^ http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/ Uslegal.com: Hate speech] Retrieved 31 July 2012
  7. ^ UK-USA: The British Character of America
  8. ^ The PCspeak of Diversity
  9. ^ George Orwell meets the OIC
  10. ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20
  11. ^ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 4
  12. ^ Paragraph 54 of “Draft general comment No. 34”, UN Human Rights Committee Hundredth and first session, 3 May 2011
  13. ^ Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the use of the Internet for purposes of incitement to racial hatred, racist propaganda and xenophobia, and on ways of promoting international cooperation in this area, Preparatory Committee for the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, United Nations, 27 April 2001
  14. ^ “1988 Constitution made racism a crime with no right to bail”, Folha de São Paulo, 15 April 2005.
  15. ^ “Advocating genocide”, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sec. 318, Criminal Code of Canada]
  16. ^ “Public incitement of hatred” and “Wilful promotion of hatred”, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sec. 319, Criminal Code of Canada]
  17. ^ Alvaro Paúl Díaz, The Criminalization of Hate Speech in Chile in Light of Comparative Case Law (IN SPANISH), Rev. chil. derecho, 2011, vol.38, n.3, pp. 573-609.
  18. ^ Alvaro Paul Díaz, The Criminalization of Hate Speech in Chile in Light of Comparative Case Law (IN SPANISH), Rev. chil. derecho, 2011, vol.38, n.3, pp. 573-609.
  19. ^ Article 174. of Croatian penal code on Croatian Wikisource
  20. ^ Danish Penal code, Straffeloven, section 266 B.
  21. ^ “TV2:n Vihaillassa ei päästy yksimielisyyteen vihapuhe-käsitteestä” (in Finnish). Helsing Sanomat. 20 September 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
  22. ^ a b “Vihapuheen määritelmästä ei yksimielisyyttä” (in Finnish). YLE Uutiset (YLE). 21 September 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011.
  23. ^ Finnish Penal code Rikoslaki/Strafflagen Chapter 11, section 10 Ethnic agitation / Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan
  24. ^ Loi 90-615 du 13 juillet 1990
  25. ^ Constitution of India
  26. ^ Bunreacht na hEireann Fundamental Rights
  27. ^ Irish Statute Book Database
  28. ^ Dublin Bus driver convicted of incitement to hatred
  29. ^ “Jordan, Combined reports submitted for 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007”, Reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United Nations, 21 September 2011, accessed 13 September 2012
  30. ^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code – article 137c
  31. ^ (Dutch) Dutch penal code – article 137d
  32. ^ BBC report on Geert Wilders
  33. ^ “Geert Wilders cleared of hate charges by Dutch court”. BBC News. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  34. ^ Norwegian Penal code, Straffeloven, section 135 a.
  35. ^ Venice Commission (2008). “Analysis of the Domestic Law Concerning Blasphemy, Religious Insult and Inciting Religious Hatred in Albania, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom on the Basis of Replies to a Questionnaire”. Council of Europe. Retrieved 14 May 2010.
  36. ^ Serbian Penal code, section 317.
  37. ^ Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000, s. 10(1).
  38. ^ Clark, DM (2003). South African Law Reform Commission Issue Paper 22 Project 130: Stalking. South African Law Commission. ISBN 0-621-34410-9.
  39. ^ Hanti, Otto (9 August 2006). “Man fined after racial slur to top judge”. IOL. Retrieved 10 July 2007.
  40. ^ Benesch, Susan. “Words as Weapons”. World Policy Journal (Spring 2012). Retrieved 31 May 2012.
  41. ^ Swedish Penal code, Brottsbalken, chapter 16, section 8.
  42. ^ The Swedish Penal Code (English), chapter 16, section 8
  43. ^ Proposition 2001/02:59, Hets mot folkgrupp, m.m., chapter 5
  44. ^ a b Judgment of the Supreme Court of Sweden in the Åke Green case
  45. ^ Lag om hets mot folkgrupp innefattar homosexuella
  46. ^ The Local, 29 Nov 2005: Åke Green cleared over gay sermon
  47. ^ “Basel verbiete jede Diffamierung von Juden und Judentum” (in German) (PDF). Vienna: Die Stimme – Jüdische Zeitung. 14 December 1934. Retrieved 12 November 2009.
  48. ^ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/146
  49. ^ Public Order Act 1986
  50. ^ Official text of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  51. ^ Official text of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  52. ^ Official text of the Amendment to Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  53. ^ Official text of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (England and Wales) as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  54. ^ Official text of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
  55. ^ Schauer, Frederick (February 2005). “The Exceptional First Amendment”. Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. doi:10.2139/ssrn.668543. “On this cluster of interrelated topics, there appears to be a strong international consensus that the principles of freedom of expression are either overridden or irrelevant when what is being expressed is racial, ethnic, or religious hatred. … In contrast to this international consensus that various forms of hate speech need to be prohibited by law and that such prohibition creates no or few free speech issues, the United States remains steadfastly committed to the opposite view. … In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment, but in the United States, all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”
  56. ^ R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul
  57. ^ Unfettered Press: Libel Law in the United States
  58. ^ US CODE: Title 18,2101. Riots
  59. ^ See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause.
  60. ^ R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, at 393
  61. ^ Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in US – The New York Times
  62. ^ See, e.g.,Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
  63. ^ Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
  64. ^ See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).
  65. ^ “Free speech on public college campuses”, Kermit L. Hall, First Amendment Center, 13 September 2002
  66. ^ See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995).
  67. ^ “Harassment policies in the university”, Alan Charles Kors, Society, vol.28, no.4 (May/June 1991), pp.22-30, Springer, ISSN:0147-2011 (Print), ISSN:1936-4725 (Online)
  68. ^ Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes, Report to Congress, J L Gattuso; B Harris; C E Mattey; C A Nila; and T Sloan, NCJ 157948, National Telecommunication and Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce, 1993, 84 pp.]
  69. ^ [1] ]
  70. ^ National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) Petition for Inquiry in the Matter of Hate Speech in the Media, before the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 28 January 2009
  71. ^ “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study”, January 2009
  72. ^ “Hate Speech in the Media”, a funded project of the Social Science Research Council, Primary Investigators: Chon A. Noriega and Francisco Javier Iribarren, University of California-Los Angeles, in partnership with the National Hispanic Media Coalition
  73. ^ Comments of the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), in the matter of Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age (GN docket no. 10-25), before the US Federal Communications Commission, 7 May 2010

External links

Categories: Uncategorized

Tagged as:

1 reply

Leave a Reply