Different treatment of hate speech in the process of communication in Europe and the U.S.
Abstract
The question how to treat the hate speech in the communication process is complex and there is no easy answer. Two existing models - American and European - are entirely different towards hate speech and its positioning in the room that belongs on the freedom of expression. In the American legal system, hate speech is an integral part of freedom of expression, while in Europe it is an abuse of the basic human rights for free speech. Hence, in these two approaches permanently is present the issue is there any limit in democracy for freedom of expression and if so, where to draw the line. The dilemmas are not easy to solve and there is no universal answer: sometimes and the best intentions to prevent the spread of hatred in the communication processes could be easily stray into a ban with totalitarian character of a different opinion and criticism; On the other hand, and excessive openness for different views and perspectives in society could be deformed in the abuse of the right for free speech and losing of sense of responsibly for publicly spoken speech and harming of another one. Unfortunately, the state does not have a universal "instrument" that would show whether something is freedom of expression or its misuse. This is a question that American and European legislation attempting to answer for a while, however without definite conclusion and universally acceptable solution.
Key words: hate speech, free speech, discourse, media, law, government
References
Beham, M. (2004). Govor mržnje u politici i medijima. U Vacić, Z. (ur.), Etika javne riječi u medijima i politici. Centar za liberalno demokratske studije, Beograd.
Boyle, K. (2001). Hate Speech – The United States Versus the Rest of the World?. Maine Law Review, 53(2): 488–502.
Brugger, W. (2002). Ban On or Protection of Hate Speech? Some Observations Based on German and American Law, 17 TUL. EUR. & CIV. L.F. 1.
Cortese, A. & Joseph, P. (2006). Opposing Hate Speech. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.
Greenwalt, K. (1989). Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haupt, C. E. (2005). Regulating Hate Speech – Damned if You do and Damned if You don’t: Lessons Learned from Comparing the German and U.S. approaches. Boston University International Law Journal, 23: 299–335.
Heuman, M. & Church, T. W. (1997). Hate Speech On Campus 6-7. Massachusetts: Northeastern University Press.
Karst, K. (1975). Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment. University of Chicago Law Review, 43: 20–68.
Levin, A. (2010). The Cost of Free Speech Pornography, Hate Speech, and their Challenge to Liberalism. New York: Niagara University.
Lowenstein, K. (1937). Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, I. American Political Science Review, 31, 638–658.
Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C., R. III, Delgado, R. & Crenshaw, K. W. (eds.). (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
McGonagle, T. (2001). Wrestling (Racial) Equality from Tolerance of Hate Speech. Dublin University Law Journal (ns), 21: 21–54.
Meiklejohn, A. (1948). Free Speech and Its Relation to Self Government. New York: Harper and Row.
Михајлова, Е. (2010). Говорот на омраза и културната различност. Скопје: Темплум.
Raz, J. (1992). Rights and Individual Well-Being. Ratio Juris 5(2): 127–142.
Rosenfeld, M. (2003). Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis. Cardozo Law Review, 24(4).
Saunders, K. W. (2011). Degradation What the History of Obscenity Tells Us about Hate Speech. New York: New York University Press.
Walker, S. (1994). Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Copyright
Authors retain copyright of the published papers and grant to the publisher the non-exclusive right to publish the article, to be cited as its original publisher in case of reuse, and to distribute it in all forms and media.
Licensing
The published articles will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-SA). It is allowed to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and remix, transform, and build upon it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given to the original author(s), a link to the license is provided, it is indicated if changes were made and the new work is distributed under the same license as the original.
Users are required to provide full bibliographic description of the original publication (authors, article title, journal title, volume, issue, pages), as well as its DOI code. In electronic publishing, users are also required to link the content with both the original article published in CM: Communication and Media and the licence used.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Self-archiving policy
Authors are permitted to deposit author’s publisher's version (PDF) of their work in an institutional repository, subject-based repository, author's personal website (including social networking sites, such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu, etc.), at any time after publication.
Full bibliographic information (authors, article title, journal title, volume, issue, pages) about the original publication must be provided and links must be made to the article's DOI and the license.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in the published works do not express the views of the Editors and the Editorial Staff. The authors take legal and moral responsibility for the ideas expressed in the articles. Publisher shall have no liability in the event of issuance of any claims for damages. The Publisher will not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation.