Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:24:58.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finding the Harm in Hate Speech: An Argument against Censorship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2017

Stephen L. Newman
Stephen L. Newman*
Affiliation:
York University
*
Department of Political Science, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto ON, M3J 1P3, email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The liberal justification for censorship equates the harm in hate speech with the sort of tangible injury that would justify state intervention under J.S. Mill's harm principle. Recently, Jeremy Waldron has suggested that the real harm perpetuated by hate speech is less tangible, taking it to be a variety of moral pollution which undermines both the public good of inclusiveness and the minority's assurance of personal dignity. This paper scrutinizes Waldron's conception of the harm in hate speech, arguing that it lacks the specificity and gravity Mill's principle requires in order to justify censorship. The paper also questions the categorical distinction between hate speech and speech that is “merely offensive,” arguing that Waldron's reasons for censoring the one also apply to the other. The result is a censorship regime that liberals ought not to accept.

Résumé

La justification libérale de la censure met sur un pied d’égalité le tort causé par le discours haineux et le préjudice tangible qui justifierait l’intervention de l’État en vertu du principe de non-nuisance à autrui de J.S. Mill. Récemment, Jeremy Waldron a suggéré que le préjudice réel perpétré par le discours haineux est moins tangible, en le considérant comme une forme de pollution morale qui constitue une atteinte aux biens publics que sont l'inclusion et la dignité personnelle des membres d'une minorité. Cet article examine la conception de Waldron concernant le préjudice causé par le discours haineux en soutenant qu’il n’a pas la spécificité et la gravité que le principe de Mill exige afin de justifier la censure. L’article remet également en question la distinction catégorique entre le discours haineux et des propos « purement offensants » en soutenant que les raisons de Waldron de censurer l’un s’appliquent aussi aux autres. Le résultat est un régime de censure que les libéraux ne devraient pas accepter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 679 - 697
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

My thanks to Ronnie Beiner, Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Michael Gelb, Samuel LaSelva and especially Ross Rudolph for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. My thanks also to the journal's two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

References

Adams, Henry. 1931. The Education of Henry Adams. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
Ash, Timothy Garton. 2016. Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, Stefan. 2004. Democracy off Balance: Freedom of Expression and Hate Propaganda Law in Canada. 2nd ed.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Brettschneider, Corey. 2012. When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cossman, Brenda, ed. 1997. Bad Attitude/s on Trial: Pornography, Feminism and the Butler Decision. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Dado, Natasha. 2013. “Hate Crimes against Muslims Only Escalating 10 Years After 9/11.” http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_6246/Hate-crimes-against-Muslims-only-escalating-10-years-after-9-11-.html (April 24, 2015).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1993. “Women and Pornography.” New York Review of Books, Oct. 21.Google Scholar
Dyzenhaus, David. 1992. “John Stuart Mill and the Harm of Pornography.” Ethics 102:3, 534–51.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stephen M. 1998. Please Don't Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925).Google Scholar
Green, Steven K. 2015. Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ha, Tu Thanh. 2016. “Paul Bronfman ‘outraged’ over pro-Palestinian mural at York University.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/film-exec-pulls-support-for-york-university-over-pro-palestinian-mural/article28396804/ (April 24, 2016).Google Scholar
Harb, Ali. 2015. “Rise of bigoted speech against Muslims on the web is alarming.” http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_10565/Rise-of-bigoted-speech-against-Muslims-on-the-web-is-alarming.html (April 24, 2016).Google Scholar
Heinrichs, Terry. 2002. “Gitlow Redux: ‘Bad Tendencies’ in the Great White North.” Wayne Law Review 48: 1101–56.Google Scholar
Herzog, Don. 1998. Poisoning the Minds of the Lower Orders. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, Robert. 1979. The Cultural Pattern in American Politics: The First Century. Washington DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Kohn, Sally. 2015. “Trump's Outrageous Mexico Remarks.” http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/17/opinions/kohn-donald-trump-announcement/ (April 23, 2016).Google Scholar
Macedo, Stephen. 2000. Democracy and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McElroy, Wendy. 1997. XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Magnet, Joseph. 1994. “Hate Propaganda in Canada.” In Free Expression: Essays in Law and Philosophy , ed. W.J. Waluchow. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. [1859] 1978. On Liberty. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Modood, Tariq, Hansen, Randall, Bleich, Erik, O'Leary, Brendan and Carens, Joseph, 2006. “The Danish Cartoon Affair: Free Speech, Racism, Islamism, and Integration.” International Migration 44.5: 3–62.Google Scholar
“Most Tea Partiers Call American a Christian Nation, Study Says.” 2010. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/05/most-tea-partiers-call-america-a-christian-nation-study-finds/ (April 23, 2016).Google Scholar
Newman, Stephen L. 2004. “American and Canadian Perspectives on Hate Speech and the Limits of Free Expression.” In Constitutional Politics in Canada and the United States, ed. Newman, Stephen L.. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Stephen L. 2001. “What Not to Do About Hate Speech: An Argument against Censorship.” In Canadian Political Philosophy ed. Beiner, Ronald and Norman, Wayne. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2015. “Gay Marriage around the World.” http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/ (April 23, 2016).Google Scholar
R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467.Google Scholar
Schleifer, Theodore. 2016. “Donald Trump: ‘I think Islam Hates Us.’” http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/ (March 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Skipper, Robert. 1993. “Mill and Pornography.” Ethics 103: 4, 726–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strossen, Nadine. 2000. Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Sumner, L. W. 2004. The Hateful and the Obscene: Studies in the Limits of Free Expression. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. 1992. Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2012. The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).Google Scholar
Whitaker, Reg. 1999. “Chameleon on a Changing Background: The Politics of Censorship in Canada.” In Interpreting Censorship in Canada, ed. Peterson, K. and Hutchinson, A.C.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Yakabuski, Konrad. 2016. “The York mural controversy: when art and politics collide.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-york-mural-controversy-when-art-and-politics-collide/article28421446/ (April 24, 2016).Google Scholar