Abstract

In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. This approach differs from most other Western democracies, many of which have enacted criminal or civil laws to punish those who publicly incite hatred toward groups based on their fixed identity characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Traditionally, U.S. jurisprudence and legal scholarship have relied on several discrete theories to justify this approach. These include the marketplace of ideas, political self-governance, personal liberty, the bellwether argument, the safety valve argument, and the reverse enforcement argument. For decades, these theories have been cited as the reasons why the United States allows hate speech. But do they still hold water? Social norms are changing. More Americans are beginning to understand how systems of oppression have shaped our laws and institutions. Young people are more willing now than they've been in the past to accept limits on our right to free expression to promote an inclusive society that welcomes diverse groups. Given these shifting norms, this article asks whether and to what extent each of these theories remains a viable justification for protecting hate speech. The result of this analysis is a comprehensive picture of how these ideas operate in our modern social, political, and media environments. With this clear-eyed view, we can more accurately weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of our collective decision to protect hate speech in the United States.

摘要

在美国，仇恨言论受到第一修正案的保护。这种做法与大多数其他西方民主国家不同，其中许多国家颁布了刑法或民法来惩罚那些基于种族或族裔等固定身份特征公开煽动对群体的仇恨的人。传统上，美国法理学和法律学术依赖于几种离散的理论来证明这种方法的合理性。这些包括思想市场、政治自治、个人自由、领头羊论证、安全阀论证和反向执行论证。几十年来，这些理论一直被认为是美国允许仇恨言论的原因。但它们还有水吗？社会规范正在发生变化。越来越多的美国人开始了解压迫制度如何塑造了我们的法律和制度。现在的年轻人比过去更愿意接受对言论自由权的限制，以促进建立一个欢迎多元化群体的包容性社会。鉴于这些不断变化的规范，本文询问这些理论是否以及在多大程度上仍然是保护仇恨言论的可行理由。分析的结果是对这些想法如何在我们现代社会、政治和媒体环境中运作的全面描述。有了这种清晰的观点，我们可以更准确地权衡我们保护美国仇恨言论的集体决定的潜在好处和弊端。现在的年轻人比过去更愿意接受对言论自由权的限制，以促进建立一个欢迎多元化群体的包容性社会。鉴于这些不断变化的规范，本文询问这些理论是否以及在多大程度上仍然是保护仇恨言论的可行理由。分析的结果是对这些想法如何在我们现代社会、政治和媒体环境中运作的全面描述。有了这种清晰的观点，我们可以更准确地权衡我们保护美国仇恨言论的集体决定的潜在好处和弊端。现在的年轻人比过去更愿意接受对言论自由权的限制，以促进建立一个欢迎多元化群体的包容性社会。鉴于这些不断变化的规范，本文询问这些理论是否以及在多大程度上仍然是保护仇恨言论的可行理由。分析的结果是对这些想法如何在我们现代社会、政治和媒体环境中运作的全面描述。有了这种清晰的观点，我们可以更准确地权衡我们保护美国仇恨言论的集体决定的潜在好处和弊端。本文询问这些理论是否以及在多大程度上仍然是保护仇恨言论的可行理由。分析的结果是对这些想法如何在我们现代社会、政治和媒体环境中运作的全面描述。有了这种清晰的观点，我们可以更准确地权衡我们保护美国仇恨言论的集体决定的潜在好处和弊端。本文询问这些理论是否以及在多大程度上仍然是保护仇恨言论的可行理由。分析的结果是对这些想法如何在我们现代社会、政治和媒体环境中运作的全面描述。有了这种清晰的观点，我们可以更准确地权衡我们保护美国仇恨言论的集体决定的潜在好处和弊端。