ABOUT
Quotes (Academic Theory)
Hate (Speech/Crime)

AUTHOR

Zoë James, Katie Mcbride

SOURCE

Critical Hate Studies: A (...)

Originally having grown out of the civil rights movement in the USA, studies of bias motivated offending, hate incidents and speech have burgeoned more recently in the UK and Europe. Beyond Europe hate studies have also expanded as evidenced by the breadth of papers presented at the International Network for Hate Studies conferences 2018 and 2020. Official categories of hate victims based on perceived identities, have expanded to include legally protected characteristics and officially recognised police categories of disability, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation and transgender identity (Sherry, 2010; James, 2015; McBride, 2018). In addition, empirical research in this (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 01. Genesis

AUTHOR

Zoë James, Katie Mcbride

SOURCE

Critical Hate Studies: A (...)

Additionally, hate studies are reduced to a manifestation of identity politics, that is dismissed by left universalist political voices as having created silos that dilute critical thinking. As Duggan (2003) argues, this is to fail to recognise the gains made by identity politics and to negate the importance and relevance of neo-liberalism that can be best understood in relation to the complexities of power and hierarchy that are constantly shifting within its confines.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 01. Genesis

AUTHOR

Valerie Jenness

SOURCE

The Hate Crime Canon (...)

The anti-hate crime movement emerged through a fusion of the strategies and goals of several identifiable precursor movements – most notably the now well-institutionalized black civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay and lesbian movement, the disabilities movement, and the victim’s right movement – that laid the foundation for a new movement to question, and make publicly debatable, issues of ‘rights’ and ‘harm’ as they relate to a variety of constituencies. One of the major achievements of the anti-hate crime movement is that it unites disparate social movements, what some would refer to as ‘strange bedfellows’. As liberal, progressive (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 01. Genesis

AUTHOR

Valerie Jenness

SOURCE

The Hate Crime Canon (...)

One key element of American law that significantly shaped the hate crime canon in the U.S is the ‘norm of sameness.’ As a basic assumption of American law and thus lawmaking, the ‘norm of sameness’ is best expressed in the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and is echoed in innumerable other locations. Simply put, the ‘norm of sameness’ stipulates that laws must apply equally to all groups and individuals in society. As a journalist observed and questioned with regard to hate crime, ‘a large stone in the foundation of the American dream is the idea that every person (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 01. Genesis

AUTHOR

Valerie Jenness

SOURCE

The Hate Crime Canon (...)

The final key feature of the hate crime canon in the U.S. is ‘status provisions,’ or what Soule and Earl refer to as ‘target groups,’ identified in hate crime law. Just as the intent standard distinguishes hate crime from parallel crimes, so too do status provisions. Status provisions single out some axes of oppression as part and parcel of the hate crime problem in the U.S., while rendering other axes around which violence is organized invisible. One the of most important elements of the substantive character of hate crime law – the adoption of select status provisions, such as race, (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 01. Genesis

AUTHOR

Zoë James, Katie Mcbride

SOURCE

Critical Hate Studies: A (...)

Having established above that the human subject is not independent, but rather is dependent on social interaction to attain self-identity, so we must consider how that inter-subjectivity occurs effectively (as set out by Honneth, 1996; see Yar, 2012). In order for an individual to achieve a positive sense of self-esteem others must recognise them as valuable and those others, in turn, must be valued in order that their act of recognition is itself valuable. Returning to the notion of a positive discourse within hate studies, the theory of recognition allows us to consider how we might attain human flourishing by (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 02. Fundamentals of Hate itself

AUTHOR

Zoë James, Katie Mcbride

SOURCE

Critical Hate Studies: A (...)

Many theorists, as noted above, have identified aspects of social structure as determinants of hate in society
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 02. Fundamentals of Hate itself

AUTHOR

Zoë James, Katie Mcbride

SOURCE

Gypsies' And Travellers' Lived (...)

A critical hate studies perspective suggests that hate studies could expedite a comprehensive and effective approach to positive praxis through recognition of the human need to flourish. In doing so, a positive discourse would develop that focused on what should, rather than should not, be experienced (Hall and Winlow, 2015). It would then be possible to create a policy and practice environment that effectively acknowledges that race matters, but which also acknowledges the intersectional nature our identities and the harmful subjectivities engendered within contemporary neoliberal society.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 02. Fundamentals of Hate itself

AUTHOR

Zoë James, Katie Mcbride

SOURCE

Critical Hate Studies: A (...)

Individuals suffer the harms of hate within their interpersonal relationships when their identity is stifled, managed or negated. Within an environment that marginalises and essentialises multiple identities, harms manifest as the pressure to conform to social norms played out within interpersonal spaces. So, as our identities develop, we look to those closest to us to affirm what is expected of us and what will be valued. If the human subject exists in an essentialised environment, wherein cultural expectations are bounded by particular normativities based on gender, race and sexuality for example (Warner, 2000) so divergence from them is vilified.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 03. Harm & Offence

AUTHOR

Zoë James, Katie Mcbride

SOURCE

Gypsies' And Travellers' Lived (...)

The theory of recognition (Yar, 2012) provides a useful framework to illustrate the harms of hate.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 03. Harm & Offence

AUTHOR

Logan Drake

SOURCE

Free To Hate: Can (...)

Joel Feinberg has presented another principle for limiting liberty which is relevant to free speech discussions: the offense principle. In some ways we can see the offense principle as “lowering the bar” of the harm principle, allowing less harmful acts to fall under its jurisdiction. Feinberg himself is adamant that his offense principle ranges over offenses, which are a completely different sort of thing from harms, but I believe it makes sense to think of offenses as a (usually) lesser form of harm. The principle reads that “it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 03. Harm & Offence

AUTHOR

Zoë James, Katie Mcbride

SOURCE

Gypsies' And Travellers' Lived (...)

in order to appreciate the lived experience of hate victimisation within neoliberalism it is necessary to use a framework that incorporates all the harms of hate that are subjective, systemic and symbolic (Žižek, 2008). In order to do this critical hate studies utilises the theory of recognition as developed by Yar (2012) using Honneth (1996) that sets out the necessity for humans to be respected, esteemed and loved in their lives in order to flourish. Although critiques of theories of recognition pose relevant and useful questions (Fraser, 2001; Toniolatti, 2015), the purpose of the theory here is to provide one (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 04. Subjective Feelings & Prejudices

AUTHOR

María Antonia, Julio Montero-Díaz, (...)

SOURCE

Hate Speech: A Systematized (...)

Moreover, it should be noted that the HS [Hate Speech] occurs in the sphere that Western societies provide for freedom of expression, although political regimes that do not respect the principle of free speech use HS [Hate Speech] as a means of intimidation.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Jeffrey W. Howard

SOURCE

Free Speech And Hate (...)

On Waldron’s (2012, p. 39) view, the purpose of hate speech is to defame the members of historically marginalized groups - to degrade them as untrustworthy, inferior, lazy, dangerous, or unwanted - and as such to engage in a form of “group libel.”
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

William Warner, Julia Hirschberg

SOURCE

Detecting Hate Speech On (...)

Hate speech is a particular form of offensive language that makes use of stereotypes to express an ideology of hate.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Logan Drake

SOURCE

Free To Hate: Can (...)

Hate speech generally is defined as “speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)”
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Logan Drake

SOURCE

Free To Hate: Can (...)

The final category, “assertions of fact or value which constitute an adverse judgment on an identifiable group,” represents what I think of as “toned down” or “cleaned up” hate speech. Instead of shouting racial slurs at an individual or performing a mock slave auction while in blackface5 (examples of targeted and diffuse vilification), assertions of fact or value provide more “civil” arguments and reasoning that may get at the same end goal. Instead of shouting at one particular immigrant to go home, a person may assert in political discussions that immigrants are taking jobs that should go to natural-born citizens, (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Jeffrey W. Howard

SOURCE

Free Speech And Hate (...)

However, bans on hate speech do not restrict people from having hateful thoughts; they simply prevent people from harming others through the expression of those thoughts
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Jeffrey W. Howard

SOURCE

Free Speech And Hate (...)

The first step in any argument for criminalizing hate speech is to establish that such speech is outside the protective ambit of the moral right to freedom of expression
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Logan Drake

SOURCE

Free To Hate: Can (...)

David Van Mill puts it this way: “The argument from democracy contends that political speech is essential not only for the legitimacy of the regime, but for providing an environment where people can develop and exercise their goals, talents, and abilities. If hate speech... curtail[s] the development of such capacities in certain sections of the community, we have an argument, based on reasons used to justify free speech, for prohibition.”
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Jeffrey W. Howard

SOURCE

Free Speech And Hate (...)

“Although free speech is an important value,” writes Parekh (2012, p. 45), “it is not the only one.” This common suggestion is that our commitment to free speech must be balanced when its demands conflict with other normative commitments, such as the social equality, dignity, or security of historically marginalized citizens. (...) Second, and more importantly, the balancing model mischaracterizes the real debate. It suggests that those who oppose bans on hate speech are the real defenders of free expression, whereas those who support bans are hostile to free speech, or at the very least comfortable with infringing it for (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Jeffrey W. Howard

SOURCE

Free Speech And Hate (...)

After all, all of these views are compatible with the idea that the purpose of democracy - the purpose of government - is the achievement of substantive liberal justice (Howard 2018). Indeed, as Beerbohm (2012, p. 36) notes, the fact that a grave injustice is democratically authorized - the product of millions deciding together to do evil, rather than a lone despot - may aggravate its wrongness. Non-instrumental defenders of democracy, then, could concede that even if laws banning hate speech reduced the democratic character of their societies, these laws would not thereby reduce anything valuable. Democratic citizens need not (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Jeffrey W. Howard

SOURCE

Free Speech And Hate (...)

The fifth and final possible duty violated by hateful speakers is the duty not to incite wrongdoing. Unlike the other duties, this duty forbids hate speech even when it is not communicated to the hated groups (e.g., when it is expressed on hateful websites that only likeminded people tend to visit; see Tsesis 2001). Hate speech that operates in this manner does not immediately cause harm, and it certainly does not constitute harm; rather, it operates by increasing the likelihood that some intervening agent, the listener, will engage in some kind of wrongdoing. The most obvious category of wrongdoing here (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

SOURCE

Speech, Media And Ethics

My suggestion will be that there are grounds for abridging expression not only when the speech is intended to bring about physical harm, but also when it is designed to inflict psychological offence, which is morally on a par with physical harm, provided that the circumstances are such that the target group cannot avoid being exposed to it. The term ‘morally on a par with physical harm’ is intended to mean that just as we view the infliction of physical pain as a wrongful deed, seeing it as the right and the duty of the state to prohibit such an (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech

AUTHOR

Rae Langton

SOURCE

The Authority of Hate (...)

Waldron has suggested that a basic message of hate speech is one of exclusion, ‘Out!’ This could be read as a like exercise of epistemic and practical authority: as a credible verdictive, ranking Jews as outsiders; an exercitive making Jews count as outsiders; and a directive, saying that Jews should act and be treated accordingly. One difference is that the directives of hate speech extend beyond its hearers, including its recruits, and also its targets: Jews are described as out, count as out, should be treated as out, and should get out.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 05. Speech
Race (CRT)

AUTHOR

Richard Delgado

SOURCE

Critical Race Theory An (...)

One of the first Critical race theory proposals had to do with hate speech. (…) One writer suggested criminalisation as an answer; others urged that collages and universities adopt student conduct rules designed to deter ate speech on campus. (…) U.S. courts have treated campus hate-speech codes harshly (...) Elsewhere however the Supreme Court of Canada upheld that country's criminal hate-speech provision, citing critical race theorists work, while many European and British commonwealth countries have instituted controls similar to Canada's.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 06. Practise (Speech)
Race (CRT)

AUTHOR

Richard Delgado And Jean (...)

SOURCE

Critical Race Theory And (...)

Hate speech regulations and hate crime laws would seem to be some of the few measures aimed at bringing relief to minorities subjected to various forms of harassment and vituperation. Are they working out that way? Are they constitutional? Would imposing a restriction on the First Amendment backfire on minorities, as the ACLU has been urging? Critical race theorists, including the two of us, have been in the forefront of these issues, but more work remains to be done. Jeannine Bell has written a book showing how enforcement of hate crime laws has played out on ground. Jonathan Gould, a (...)
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 06. Practise (Speech)

AUTHOR

Jean Stefancic, Richard Delgado

SOURCE

A Shifting Balance: Freedom (...)

Most nations appear to find that regulating hate speech is a useful adjunct to other measures for maintaining intergroup harmony.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 06. Practise (Speech)

AUTHOR

María Antonia, Julio Montero-Díaz, (...)

SOURCE

Hate Speech: A Systematized (...)

The greatest challenge for the legal literature, which has addressed this subject most extensively, is to establish a clear differentiation between HS [Hate Speech] and hate crime in order to support the application of criminal sanctions.
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 06. Practise (Speech)

AUTHOR

James B. Jacobs And (...)

SOURCE

Hate Crimes: A Critical (...)

What Is Hate Crime?
The term “hate crime“ is a misnomer. The term actually refers to criminal behavior motivated, not by hate, but by prejudice, although there is undoubtedly some overlap. Generically, “hate crime“ is meant to distinguish criminal conduct motivated by prejudices from criminal conduct motivated by lust, jealousy, greed, politics, and so forth. Unlike theft, burglary, or assault, hate crime emphasizes the offender's attitudes, values, and character. Lobbyists for special hate crime laws believe that prejudice is worse than all other criminal motivations
Full screen Relevance: Best
Aspect: 07. Crime