Why Hate Speech Laws: An Expressive Defense
Location
Bigfoot Room 124
Start Date
21-4-2023 10:30 AM
End Date
21-4-2023 11:45 AM
Publication Date
2023
Disciplines
Arts and Humanities | Law | Social and Behavioral Sciences
Description
Hate speech laws are controversial. First Amendment jurisprudence is notorious for rejecting such laws, and First Amendment scholars like Nadine Strossen or Edwin Baker argue that hate speech legislation is ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Yet, this scholarship overlooks the expressive function of hate speech legislation, which many identify as the essential value of such legislation. For example, in jurisdictions like Canada, France, or Belgium that have hate speech laws, courts, legislators and scholars indicate that this expressive value is what interests them in hate speech legislation.
Some scholars hint at the idea that hate speech laws have an expressive value, yet they have failed to present a full-fledged expressive argument for hate speech laws – leaving the expressive defense vulnerable to criticism. Therefore, this paper aims to present the first elaborate expressive argument for hate speech laws. I draw on existing expressive theories of law, yet I apply these theories to the context of hate speech legislation and elaborate on these theories by presenting a uniquely consequentialist expressive theory of law that considers the effects of legislation both in the value and in the determination of legislative expression.
In essence, I argue that, by expressing societal disapproval of hate speech, hate speech legislation strengthens counter-speech, and as such helps to correct the speech inequality between hate speakers and counter-speakers in a way that alternative measures such as counter-speech or private regulation cannot.
Description Format
html
Recommended Citation
Van Dijcke, Hannah, "Why Hate Speech Laws: An Expressive Defense" (2023). International Conference on Hate Studies. 8.
https://repository.gonzaga.edu/icohs/2023/seventh/8
Full Text of Presentation
wf_no
Media Format
flash_audio
Session Title
Hate Crime and Speech Laws: Social Justice or Oppression
Type
Panel
Why Hate Speech Laws: An Expressive Defense
Bigfoot Room 124
Hate speech laws are controversial. First Amendment jurisprudence is notorious for rejecting such laws, and First Amendment scholars like Nadine Strossen or Edwin Baker argue that hate speech legislation is ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Yet, this scholarship overlooks the expressive function of hate speech legislation, which many identify as the essential value of such legislation. For example, in jurisdictions like Canada, France, or Belgium that have hate speech laws, courts, legislators and scholars indicate that this expressive value is what interests them in hate speech legislation.
Some scholars hint at the idea that hate speech laws have an expressive value, yet they have failed to present a full-fledged expressive argument for hate speech laws – leaving the expressive defense vulnerable to criticism. Therefore, this paper aims to present the first elaborate expressive argument for hate speech laws. I draw on existing expressive theories of law, yet I apply these theories to the context of hate speech legislation and elaborate on these theories by presenting a uniquely consequentialist expressive theory of law that considers the effects of legislation both in the value and in the determination of legislative expression.
In essence, I argue that, by expressing societal disapproval of hate speech, hate speech legislation strengthens counter-speech, and as such helps to correct the speech inequality between hate speakers and counter-speakers in a way that alternative measures such as counter-speech or private regulation cannot.