Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:33:13.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Interview with Robert Post

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Edited by
Michael Herz  and
Peter Molnar
Michael Herz
Affiliation:
Cardozo School of Law
Peter Molnar
Affiliation:
Center for Media and Communications, Central European University, Budapest
Get access

Summary

  1. Peter Molnar: When I first came to the United States, a friend told me that the supposedly strong protection of freedom of speech in this country is simply a myth. Would you agree?

  2. Robert Post: I suppose it would depend upon what one means by “myth.” In certain communicative contexts – like the Internet, newspapers, magazines, or movies – constitutional protections for speech are quite robust. But in many other settings there is far less, if any, constitutional protection. So can we conclude that the reputation of a strong First Amendment is merely a myth?

  3. PM: More narrowly, then: It is often stated that in the United States “hate speech” is constitutionally immune from regulation. Is this correct?

  4. RP: In many settings speech that is demeaning or degrading to particular minorities or genders or sexual orientations is regulated in the U.S. with few, if any, constitutional impediments. In private settings, for example, where there is no state action, constitutional restrictions do not apply. In such private settings hate speech can be regulated without constitutional constraint. There are also many public settings in which hate speech can be and is suppressed regularly and effectively. These tend to be settings in which the regulation of hate speech does not compromise public discourse.

  5. PM: For example?

  6. RP: In courtrooms, for example. Attorneys and judges will be penalized for hateful expression. So will teachers and students in public elementary and high schools, and even, in some contexts, in public universities. Prisoners, guards, and administrators will be regulated for hate speech in prisons, as will government employees in bureaucracies. There are lots and lots of settings in which in the United States government regulates or prohibits hate speech and First Amendment issues are not thought to arise.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Content and Context of Hate Speech
Rethinking Regulation and Responses
 , pp. 11 - 36
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Habermas, JürgenThe Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia ArticleMedia and Cultural Studies: Key WorksWiley-Blackwell 2001Google Scholar
Fraser, NancyRethinking the Public Sphere 25 Social Text56 1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, RobertMeiklejohn's Mistake: Individual Autonomy and the Reform of Public Discourse 64 U. Colorado L. Rev.1109 1993Google Scholar
Post, RobertDemocracy and Equality 1 Law, Culture and the Humanities142 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006
Post, RobertThe Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and 103 Harv. L. Rev.601 1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, RobertSubsidized Speech 106 Yale L.J.151 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, RobertBetween Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum 34 . Rev.1713 1987Google Scholar
Post, Robert C.Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev.267 1991Google Scholar
Estlund, CynthiaHarmonizing Work and Citizenship: A Due Process Solution to a First Amendment Problem 2006 S. Ct. Rev.115
Estlund, Cynthia L.The Workplace in a Racially Diverse Society: Preliminary Thoughts on the Role of Labor and Employment Law 1 U. Pa. J. Labor & Empl. L.49 1998Google Scholar
Browne, KingsleyZero Tolerance for the First Amendment: Title VII's Regulation of Employee Speech 27 Ohio N.U.L. Rev.563 2001Google Scholar
Post, RobertCommunity and the First Amendment 29 Az. St. L.J.473 1997Google Scholar
Post, Robert C.Constitutional Domains: Democracy, Community, ManagementHarvard University Press 1995Google Scholar
Post, RobertBetween Democracy and Community: The Legal Constitution of Social FormNomos XXXV: Democratic CommunityNYU Press 1993Google Scholar
Polanyi, KarlThe Great TransformationFarrar & Rinehart 1944Google Scholar
Habermas, JürgenStruggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional StateThe Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political TheoryMIT Press 1998Google Scholar
Michelman, FrankMorality, Identity and ‘Constitutional Patriotism’ 76 Denv. U.L. Rev.1009 1999Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 1791
Post, RobertDemocracy, Popular Sovereignty, and Judicial Review 86 Cal. L. Rev.429 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rév, IstvánRetroactive Justice: Pre-History of Post-CommunismStanford University Press 2005Google Scholar
Muhammad, Khalid 1994
Schauer, FrederickFree Speech: A Philosophical EnquiryCambridge University Press 1982Google Scholar
Post, RobertReconciling Theory and Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence 88 Cal. L. Rev.2353 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, PatrickThe Enforcement of MoralsOxford University Press 1965Google Scholar
Kalven, HarryThe Negro and the First AmendmentOhio State University Press 1965Google Scholar
1982
Whitman, James Q.Enforcing Civility and Respect: Three Societies 109 Yale L.J.1279 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, AmyDemocratic EducationPrinceton University Press 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, RobertThe Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the Common Law Tort 77 Cal. L. Rev.957 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic FreedomFinkin, Matthew W.Post, Robert C.Yale University Press 2009
Post, RobertReligion and Freedom of Speech: Portraits of Muhammad 14 Constellations72 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2009 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gashc3966.doc.htm
2010
2011
Evans, Robert 2011

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×