| Description |
1 online resource (553 pages) |
| Contents |
Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Hate speech and politics -- 1.2.1 Politically motivated hate speech -- 1.2.2 The use of the term 'hate speech' as a political or politicised act -- 1.2.3 Political disputes concerning what to do about hate speech -- 1.3 So what is the real problem of hate speech? -- 1.3.1 Understanding what the concept hate speech reveals about power -- 1.3.2 The real problem of hate speech is not simply in calling it 'a problem' -- 1.3.3 So what that people disagree about what to count as hate speech? -- 1.3.4 Defining the legal concept hate speech, whilst not forgetting context -- 1.3.5 Acknowledging the real harms of hate speech, in spite of the politics -- 1.4 Hate speech as a multisite problem -- 1.4.1 Hate speech as an individual, group and societal problem -- 1.4.2 Hate speech as a technological problem -- 1.4.3 Hate speech as a legal problem -- 1.4.4 Hate speech as a problem of, and not simply for, political figures -- 1.4.5 Hate speech as an international problem -- 1.5 Preliminaries -- 1.5.1 Methodological framework -- 1.5.2 The canon -- 1.5.3 The wider field of academic literature -- 1.5.4 Chapter summaries -- Part I The political context of hate speech laws -- 2 The contextualised meaning and salience of problems of hate speech -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Nigeria -- 2.3 Kenya -- 2.4 South Africa -- 2.5 India -- 2.6 China -- 2.7 US -- 2.8 Japan -- 2.9 UK -- 2.10 Turkey -- 2.11 Germany -- 2.12 Hungary -- 2.13 Italy -- 2.14 Conclusion -- 3 The politics behind the introduction of stirring up religious hatred offences in England and Wales -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 The public order explanation -- 3.2.1 Post-war immigration -- 3.2.2 An evolving public policy response to an evolving social problem -- 3.3 The sop explanation |
|
3.3.1 A sop for what? -- 3.3.2 Why has the sop explanation persisted in the face of contrary evidence? -- 3.4 The anti-terrorism explanation -- 3.4.1 Is the legislative vehicle coincidental? -- 3.4.2 Problems with the anti-terrorism explanation -- 3.5 The client politics explanation -- 3.5.1 What the burdens on Muslims can and cannot tell us -- 3.5.2 That Muslims were one group among many who were burdened -- 3.6 The parity of protection explanation -- 3.6.1 The wider policy background -- 3.6.2 Ironing out potential kinks in the parity of protection explanation -- 3.7 A pluralistic explanation -- 3.8 Conclusion -- 4 International relations theory and international hate speech instruments -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 The existing body of international hate speech instruments -- 4.2.1 UN system -- 4.2.2 Africa -- 4.2.3 Americas -- 4.2.4 Asia -- 4.2.5 Europe -- 4.2.6 Analysis -- 4.3 International relations theory and the ICERD -- 4.3.1 The ICERD -- 4.3.2 Monitoring reports and complaints procedures under the ICERD -- 4.3.3 Realism -- 4.3.4 Institutionalism -- 4.3.5 Constructivism -- 4.3.6 Critical approaches -- 4.3.7 What, together, these approaches tell us about the international politics of the ICERD -- 4.4 US foreign policy and the ICCPR -- 4.4.1 The Cold War -- 4.4.2 The shining city on the hill -- 4.4.3 The new world order -- 4.4.4 Smart power -- 4.4.5 Disruptive diplomacy -- 4.4.6 A story of American exceptionalism? -- 4.4.7 What does the future hold for the US and international hate speech instruments? -- 4.5 Diplomatic criticism -- 4.5.1 What makes diplomatic criticism special, descriptively speaking? -- 4.5.2 The moral obligation to support just international norms -- 4.5.3 The problem of norm contestation -- 4.5.4 The problem of counter-accusations of hypocrisy -- 4.5.5 The problem of counter-accusations of postcolonialism and neocolonialism |
|
4.6 Conclusion -- Part II Political arguments against hate speech laws -- 5 The slippery slope argument -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 The contours of the slippery slope argument -- 5.3 The facing the facts response -- 5.3.1 Societies with authoritarian regimes -- 5.3.2 Liberal democratic societies -- 5.4 The not so slippery slope response -- 5.4.1 Courts and legal reasoning -- 5.4.2 Legislative processes -- 5.4.3 Evolving social norms -- 5.5 The reaching the bottom of the slope is not so bad response -- 5.5.1 According to whose yardstick of objectionableness? -- 5.5.2 Race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity -- 5.5.3 Political beliefs, activities or affiliations -- 5.6 The true colours response -- 5.7 The burden of proof response -- 5.8 Conclusion -- 6 Some other (bad) political arguments against hate speech laws -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Arguments concerning bad intentions -- 6.2.1 The cautionary tale argument -- 6.2.2 The smokescreen argument -- 6.3 Arguments about unintended consequences -- 6.3.1 The political bias argument -- 6.3.2 The reverse-enforcement argument -- 6.3.3 The balkanization argument -- 6.4 Arguments about whether democratic communities actually want hate speech laws -- 6.4.1 The will of the people argument -- 6.4.2 The opinion poll argument -- 6.5 Scholarly arguments as political arguments -- 6.5.1 The horns of a dilemma argument -- 6.5.2 The argument from ideological bias -- 6.6 Arguments which are liable to attract the charge of hypocrisy -- 6.6.1 The political correctness argument -- 6.6.2 The melodramas argument -- 6.6.3 The name calling argument -- 6.6.4 The well-meaning fools argument -- 6.6.5 The use of metaphor argument -- 6.6.6 The self-appointed do-gooders argument -- 6.6.7 The insulting victims of hate speech argument -- 6.6.8 The argument from what is fashionable -- 6.7 Conclusion |
|
Part III Hyperpolitical hate speech and what to do about it -- 7 Do political figures have any special moral duties to refrain from hate speech? -- 7.1 Introduction -- 7.2 What potentially makes hyperpolitical hate speech a special case? -- 7.3 Violent effects -- 7.3.1 What sort of causation? -- 7.3.2 Alternative explanatory frameworks -- 7.3.3 The case of misogynistic hate speech -- 7.3.4 The case of racial, nationalist or religious hate speech -- 7.3.5 Why can the hate speech of political figures be especially dangerous? -- 7.4 Harms to democracy, government and public goods -- 7.4.1 Equal participation -- 7.4.2 Trust in government -- 7.4.3 Faith in democracy -- 7.4.4 Confidence in lawmaking -- 7.4.5 Assurance of civic dignity -- 7.5 Threats to the autonomy of the audience -- 7.6 Arguments from counter-speech -- 7.7 Political ethics -- 7.7.1 Mutual respect and the duty to refrain from hate propaganda -- 7.7.2 Mutual respect and the duty to refrain from negative stereotyping, denigration and vilification -- 7.7.3 Does anti-hate speech rhetoric ('basket of deplorables') itself show mutual respect? -- 7.7.4 Ethic of responsibility -- 7.8 Some other bad things political figures do with hate speech -- 7.8.1 Legitimising ordinary hate speech -- 7.8.2 Miseducating ordinary hate speakers -- 7.8.3 Lending authority to ordinary hate speakers -- 7.8.4 Normalising ordinary hate speech -- 7.9 Conclusion -- 8 Policy options for tackling hyperpolitical hate speech -- 8.1 Introduction -- 8.2 Is doing nothing an option? Arguments for and against the status quo -- 8.2.1 Hyperpolitical speech as political speech/public discourse -- 8.2.2 Chilling the speech of political figures -- 8.2.3 Inhibiting the preferred manners of speech and speech actions of political figures -- 8.2.4 Hyperpolitical hate speech and real politics -- 8.2.5 An issue of responsibility |
|
8.2.6 Informed voters -- 8.2.7 Perverse incentives for political figures to hide their true opinions -- 8.3 Normative political legitimacy -- 8.4 Legal measures -- 8.4.1 Enact hate speech laws that apply without fear or favour to political figures -- 8.4.2 Revise existing hate speech laws to remove accommodations made for hyperpolitical hate speech -- 8.4.3 Disapply parliamentary privilege to hate speech laws in the field of criminal law -- 8.4.4 Disapply parliamentary privilege to hate speech laws in the field of civil litigation -- 8.4.5 Disapply parliamentary privilege to hate speech laws in the field of hybrid civil proceedings -- 8.4.6 Disapply parliamentary privilege to hate speech laws on a blanket rule basis -- 8.4.7 Disapply parliamentary privilege to hate speech laws on a selective blanket rule basis -- 8.4.8 Disapply parliamentary privilege to hate speech laws on a case by case basis -- 8.4.9 Create new sentencing guidelines for hate speech offences committed by political figures -- 8.4.10 Enact bespoke hate speech laws for hyperpolitical speech -- 8.5 Quasi-legal measures -- 8.5.1 Parliamentary codes of conduct -- 8.5.2 No-one should be judge in his own case -- 8.5.3 Contempt for parliamentary colleagues and abuse of parliamentary privilege -- 8.5.4 Codes of conduct adopted by political parties -- 8.5.5 Regulation of hyperpolitical hate speech on the Internet -- 8.6 Complementary and/or transitional measures -- 8.6.1 Withdrawal of monetary support for some political parties -- 8.6.2 Mandatory anti-hatred pledges for parliamentarians -- 8.6.3 Mandatory anti-hatred training for parliamentarians -- 8.6.4 Mandatory anti-hatred training for political candidates -- 8.6.5 Right of reply procedures in parliament -- 8.7 Conclusion -- 9 What does the future hold? -- 9.1 Introduction -- 9.2 Is contextualism the enemy of objective criticism? |
| Notes |
9.3 Does it really matter if some people think hate speech laws are an extension of the dictatorship of liberal values? |
|
Publisher supplied metadata and other sources |
|
Print version record |
| Subject |
Hate speech -- Law and legislation.
|
|
Hate speech -- Law and legislation
|
| Form |
Electronic book
|
| Author |
Sinclair, Adriana
|
| ISBN |
9781315553917 |
|
1315553910 |
|
9781317019060 |
|
1317019067 |
|
