A commitment to free speech is a fundamental precept of all liberal democracies. However, democracies can differ significantly when addressing the constitutionality of laws regulating certain kinds of speech. In the United States, for instance, the commitment to free speech under the First Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court to protect the public expression of the most noxious racist ideology and hence to render unconstitutional even narrow restrictions on hate speech. In contrast, governments have been accorded considerable leeway to restrict racist and other extreme expression in almost every other democracy, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and other European countries. This book considers the legal responses of various liberal democracies towards hate speech and other forms of extreme expression, and examines the following questions:
What accounts for the marked differences in attitude towards the constitutionality of hate speech regulation?
Does hate speech regulation violate the core free speech principle constitutive of democracy?
Has the traditional US position on extreme expression justifiably not found favor elsewhere?
Do values such as the commitment to equality or dignity legitimately override the right to free speech in some circumstances?
With contributions from experts in a range of disciplines, this book offers an in-depth examination of the tensions that arise between democracy's promises.
Readership Academics, scholars, and advanced students of Human Rights; Comparative Human Rights; Freedom of Information & Freedom of Speech; Media, Information, & Communication Industries; Censorship; Extreme Speech & Hate Speech

Does American free speech doctrine discriminate against women and minorities? In "Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine, " James Weinstein carefully examines the charge that in interpreting the First Amendment as protecting hate speech and pornography while allowing myriad other exceptions to free speech, American courts have privileged the interests of the rich and powerful over the interests of women and people of color. The author concludes that while free speech doctrine is not in any deep sense as neutral as some of its apologists believe, the claim that free speech decisions and principles systematically discriminate against women and minorities does not withstand scrutiny. He shows that this claim of discrimination is based upon a profound but widely shared misunderstanding of the actual workings of free speech doctrine.In order to expose this misunderstanding, the first section of the book thoroughly explores the basic cases and principles upon which free speech doctrine is built. The second section demonstrates that the relationship between free speech and equality is far more complex than either radical critics or many liberal defenders of doctrine suppose. The third section considers the cost and benefits of modifying free speech doctrine to allow for the suppression of hate speech and pornography. After reviewing the experience of hate speech and pornography in other democracies, Weinstein concludes that while such a modification would not lead straight to totalitarianism as alarmist defenders of current doctrine contend, it would nonetheless likely inhibit legitimate debate and artistic expression. Also contrary to dogmatic defenders of current doctrine, the author concludes that although the scientific evidence that pornography causes violence to women is not nearly as conclusive as radical feminists assert, this evidence is nonetheless cause for concern.While offering a scholarly analysis of the radical critique of free speech doctrine, this book has even larger ambition: to provide nonlawyers with the background to participate knowledgeably in the continuing debate about the role of free speech in a democratic society.

Does American free speech doctrine discriminate against women and minorities? In Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine, James Weinstein carefully examines the charge that in interpreting the First Amendment as protecting hate speech and pornography while allowing myriad other exceptions to free speech, American co

Commitment to free speech is a fundamental precept of all liberal democracies. However, democracies can differ significantly when addressing the constitutionality of laws regulating certain kinds of speech. In the United States, for instance, the commitment to free speech under the First Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court to protect the public expression of the most noxious racist ideology and hence to render unconstitutional even narrow restrictions on hate speech. In contrast, governments have been accorded considerable leeway to restrict racist and other extreme expression in almost every other democracy, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and other European countries. This book considers the legal responses of various liberal democracies towards hate speech and other forms of extreme expression, and examines the following questions:
What accounts for the marked differences in attitude towards the constitutionality of hate speech regulation?
Does hate speech regulation violate the core free speech principle constitutive of democracy?
Has the traditional US position on extreme expression justifiably not found favor elsewhere?
Do values such as the commitment to equality or dignity legitimately override the right to free speech in some circumstances?
With contributions from experts in a range of disciplines, this book offers an in-depth examination of the tensions that arise between democracy's promises.