Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech

This is a study of free speech and hate speech with reference to the international standards and to the United States jurisprudence. The study, in a comparative and critical fashion, depicts the historical evolution and the application of the concept of ‘free speech,’ within the context of ‘hate speech.’ The main question of this article is how free speech can be discerned from hate speech, and whether the latter should be restricted. To this end, it examines the regulation of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in light of the international standards, particularly under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study not only illustrates how elusive the endeavour of striking a balance between free speech and other vital interests could be, but also discusses whether and how hate speech should be eliminated within the ‘marketplace of ideas.’

O hate speech e suas limitações

O objetivo deste trabalho de conclusão de curso é externar a relevância do direito à liberdade de expressão, especialmente em casos de discursos ofensivos e de incitação ao ódio, além de investigar se em algumas situações ele pode ser limitado para ceder a outros valores e de que forma. Por exemplo, através da técnica da ponderação ou de outros parâmetros pré-estabelecidos, os quais têm a função facilitar a resolução de casos difíceis, isto é, situações em que há a colisão entre direitos e deve-se chegar à conclusão de qual deles deve preponderar.

From Sisyphus’s Dilemma to Sisyphus’s Duty? A Meditation on the Regulation of Hate Propaganda in Relation to Hate Crimes and Genocide

Un résumé en français est également disponible.

The role of verbal-textual hostility in hate crime regulation : final report

Verbal-textual hostility (VTH) plays a significant role in victims’ subjective perceptions of hatred and police officers’ assessment of a prejudice-related violence. Yet, to date, the role of VTH in ‘hate’ crime has been under-researched. The aim of this research has been to assess and evaluate the forensic possibilities contained in a closer reading of the words used in these crimes. Through a content analysis of incident characteristics and officers’ narratives of incidents, this report maps out how key speech-text indicators may assist to better evaluate the force and effects of prejudice-related violence. It is expected that this type of contextual analysis will lead to the development of more sophisticated risk assessment tools for use in frontline policing, and more targeted service enhancements for victims.

Saving schools from abomination and abnormal sex : a discourse analysis of online public commentary about 'queering' school spaces

Homophobic hatred: these words summarise online commentary made by people in support of a school that banned gay students from taking their same sex partners to a school formal. With the growing popularity of online news sites, it seems appropriate to critically examine how these sites are becoming a new arena in which people can express personal opinions about controversial topics. While commentators equally expressed two dominant viewpoints about the school ban (homophobic hatred and human rights), this paper focuses on homophobic hatred as a discursive position and how the comments work to confirm the legitimacy of the schools’ decision. Drawing on the work of Foucault and others, the paper examines how the comments constitute certain types of subjectivity drawing on dominant ideas about what it means to be homophobic. The analysis demonstrates the complex and competing skein of strategies that constitute queering school social spaces as a social problem.

The Black Label: trade mark dilution, culture jamming, and the no logo movement

This article considers the ongoing debate over the appropriation of well-known and famous trade marks by the No Logo Movement for the purposes of political and social critique. It focuses upon one sensational piece of litigation in South Africa, Laugh It Off Promotions v. South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V. t/a Sabmark International. In this case, a group called Laugh It Off Promotions subjected the trade marks of the manufacturers of Carling Beer were subjected to parody, social satire, and culture jamming. The beer slogan “Black Label” was turned into a T-Shirt entitled “Black Labour/ White Guilt”. In the ensuing litigation, the High Court of South Africa and the Supreme Court of Appeal were of the opinion that the appropriation of the mark was a case of hate speech. However, the Constitutional Court of South Africa disagreed, finding that the parodies of a well-known, famous trade mark did not constitute trade mark dilution. Moseneke J observed that there was a lack of evidence of economic or material harm; and Sachs J held that there is a need to provide latitude for parody, laughter, and freedom of expression. The decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa provides some important insights into the nature of trade mark dilution, the role of parody and satire, and the relevance of constitutional protections of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Arguably, the ruling will be of help in the reformation of trade mark dilution law in other jurisdictions – such as the United States. The decision in Laugh It Off Promotions v. South African Breweries International demonstrates that trade mark law should not be immune from careful constitutional scrutiny.

A tutela penal dos discursos potencialmente ofensivos

O presente trabalho tem como ponto de partida os problemas que podem advir doexercício potencialmente danoso da liberdade de expressão. Desta forma, foram estabelecidas, inicialmente, as premissas sobre as quais se deve fundamentar o Direito Penal no seio de um Estado Democrático de Direito. Posteriormente, foram analisados os contornos do bem jurídico limitado pela eventual intervenção penal, bem como as características e principais formas de manifestação do problema, tendo sido estabelecido, ainda, um panorama do tratamento jurídico-penal conferido ao problema nos Estados Unidos, na Alemanha, na Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos e no Brasil. Da análise restou comprovado que há uma tendência majoritária à admissibilidade da intervenção penal sobre o problema, limitando discursos potencialmente danosos como forma de promover uma sociedade mais pluralista e tolerante. Partindo-se desta constatação, buscou-se elaborar uma proposta dogmática que possa servir como mecanismo de limitação do poder punitivo, estabelecendo-se critérios minimamente satisfatórios para a aferição da potencialidade lesiva de um discurso. Por fim, apresentou-se uma análise crítica a respeito de tais processos criminalizatórios, já que constituem mera tentativa de promoção de minha exposição valores por meio do Direito Penal, o que não poderia ser admitido num Estado Democrático de Direito.

Jurisdiction and the Internet: Regulatory Competence over Online Activity

null RAE2008