Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=265939
 
 

Citations (7)



 
 

Footnotes (144)



 


 



Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis


Michel Rosenfeld


Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

April 2001

Cardozo Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 41

Abstract:     
The United States protects much hate speech that is banned in other Western constitutional democracies and under international human rights covenants and conventions. In the United States, only hate speech that leads to "incitement to violence" can be constitutionally restricted, while under the alternative approach found elsewhere, bans properly extend to hate speech leading to "incitement to hatred." The article undertakes a comparative analysis in light of changes brought by new technologies, such as the internet, which allow for worldwide spread of protected hate speech originating in the United States. After evaluating the respective doctrines, arguments and values involved, the article concludes that the United States approach is less defensible than its counterparts elsewhere.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 63

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 12, 2001  

Suggested Citation

Rosenfeld, Michel, Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis (April 2001). Cardozo Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 41. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=265939 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.265939

Contact Information

Michel Rosenfeld (Contact Author)
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law ( email )
55 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10003
United States
212-790-0234 (Phone)
212-790-0205 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 5,325
Downloads: 1,332
Download Rank: 7,067
Citations:  7
Footnotes:  144

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.266 seconds