LEADER 03829nam 2200625 a 450 001 9910779535603321 005 20230802010300.0 010 $a0-674-06991-9 010 $a0-674-06508-5 024 7 $a10.4159/harvard.9780674065086 035 $a(CKB)2550000001039418 035 $a(EBL)3301269 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000883446 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11456796 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000883446 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10923910 035 $a(PQKB)10226247 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3301269 035 $a(DE-B1597)178178 035 $a(OCoLC)835640673 035 $a(OCoLC)840442194 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780674065086 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3301269 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10678700 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000001039418 100 $a20111109d2012 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 14$aThe harm in hate speech$b[electronic resource] /$fJeremy Waldron 210 $aCambridge, Mass. $cHarvard University Press$d2012 215 $a1 online resource (304 p.) 225 1 $aOliver Wendell Holmes lectures ;$v2009 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a0-674-06589-1 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. [235]-278) and index. 327 $t Frontmatter -- $tAcknowledgments -- $tContents -- $t1. Approaching Hate Speech -- $t2. Anthony Lewis's Freedom for the Thought That We Hate -- $t3. Why Call Hate Speech Group Libel? -- $t4. The Appearance of Hate -- $t5. Protecting Dignity or Protection from Offense? -- $t6. C. Edwin Baker and the Autonomy Argument -- $t7. Ronald Dworkin and the Legitimacy Argument -- $t8. Toleration and Calumny -- $tNotes -- $tIndex 330 $aEvery liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech-except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities.Causing offense-by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example-is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group's dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home.Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech. 410 0$aOliver Wendell Holmes lectures ;$v2009. 606 $aHate speech$zUnited States 606 $aFreedom of speech$xPhilosophy 615 0$aHate speech 615 0$aFreedom of speech$xPhilosophy. 676 $a345.73/0256 686 $aAP 17340$2rvk 700 $aWaldron$b Jeremy$0263108 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910779535603321 996 $aThe harm in hate speech$93670789 997 $aUNINA