000 03803cam a2200553 a 4500
001 u160059
003 SIRSI
005 20240916205820.0
008 111109s2012 mau b 001 0 eng
010 _a 2011046700
015 _aGBB217727
_2bnb
020 _a9780674065895
_q(hbk.)
020 _a0674065891
_q(hbk.)
020 _a9780674416864
020 _a0674416864
020 _z9780674065086
_q(ebook)
020 _z0674065085
_q(ebook)
035 _a(OCoLC)758383685
050 0 0 _aKF9345
_b.W34 2012
055 3 _aKF9345
_bW35
082 0 0 _a345.73/0256
_223
092 _a345.73
_bW167h
100 1 _aWaldron, Jeremy.
245 1 4 _aThe harm in hate speech /
_cJeremy Waldron.
260 _aCambridge, Mass. :
_bHarvard University Press,
_c2012.
300 _avi, 292 pages ;
_c21 cm
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _aunmediated
_bn
_2rdamedia
338 _avolume
_bnc
_2rdacarrier
490 1 _aThe Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures ;
_v2009
504 _aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 235-278) and index.
505 0 _aApproaching hate speech -- Anthony Lewis's Freedom for the Thought That We Hate -- Why call hate speech group libel? -- The appearance of hate -- Protecting dignity or protection from offense? -- C. Edwin Baker and the autonomy argument -- Ronald Dworkin and the legitimacy argument -- Toleration and calumny.
520 _aEvery liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech, except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, the author argues that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense, by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example, is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group's dignity, according to the author, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. The author finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, he asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
583 1 _aSelf-Renewing
_c2017
_5UoY
650 0 _aHate speech
_zUnited States.
650 0 _aFreedom of speech
_xPhilosophy.
650 7 _aFreedom of speech
_xPhilosophy.
_2fast
_0(OCoLC)fst00934052
650 7 _aHate speech.
_2fast
_0(OCoLC)fst00951890
651 7 _aUnited States.
_2fast
_0(OCoLC)fst01204155
610 2 7 _a
_gBitterfeld
_2gnd
650 7 _aMeinungsfreiheit
_2gnd
650 7 _aHate crime
_2gnd
650 7 _aYttrandefrihet
_z
_2sao
776 1 _cElectronic resource
_z9780674065086
830 0 _aOliver Wendell Holmes lectures ;
_v2009.
856 4 1 _3Table of contents
_uhttp://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy13pdf01/2011046700.html
856 4 1 _uhttps://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086
949 _cc.1
_lCIRCSTACKS
_tBOOK
_xPRINT
_p
999 _a345.73 W167H
_wDEWEY
_c6557
_i51994001669318
_f6/29/2023
_g2
_lCIRCSTACKS
_mLRC
_p$26.95
_rY
_sY
_tBOOK
_u7/20/2020
_xPRINT
_d6557