LWSO 413 Final Exam Prep.docx

70 Pages
Unlock Document

Law and Society
LWSO 413
Linda Mc Kay- Panos

LWSO 413 HATE SPEECH CHAPTER 1Overview Hate speech and rights of groups or rights of individuals to things that enhance or protect or respect their affiliation with groups Hate speechWhat is it Expression oral written signs picturesTargets a groupSuggests that members of the groupought to be killed Ought to be exiled Ought to be enslaved Ought to be disliked Ought to be ignored Are misrepresenting their pastIssues of definitionWhat kind of intent is necessary Will Kymlicka Multicultural Citizenship A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights Oxford UP 1996Kymlicka Canada Research Chair in Political Philosophy at Queens University Kingston8 books over 200 articles translated into 32 languages Multicultural Citizenship ReadablethDeeply engaged with the real problems of real societies over time and especially in the late 20 centuryAn attempt to address current conflictsMinorities and majorities increasingly clash over such issues as language rights regional autonomy political representation education curriculum land claims immigration and naturalization policy even national symbols such as the choice of national anthem or public holidays Finding morally defensible and politically viable answers to these issues is the greatest challenge facing democracies today 1Kymlicka ch 1Accuses western political theorists of tending to write as if citizens have common descent language culture even when they live in polyglot places What to do about cultural minorities culturally distinct groups of people living within larger polities thEarly 20century efforts to protect minorities eg German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia destabilizing excuse for warGermans agreed to give certain rights and privileges to ethnic Poles in Germany w Poland giving rights to Germans in PolandThese treaties were inadequateDestabilizing only ensured protection from discrimination and oppression if there was a kin state nearby which took an interest in itExcuse of war often used treaty provisions as grounds for invading or intervening in weaker countiesNazi Germany invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia on grounds that they violated the treaty rights of ethnic Germans on their soilPostWW2 address them by addressing the basic human rights of individualsFollowing the model of dealing with religious minorities separation of church and state and entrenching each individuals freedom of religionPostwar liberal approach State neutral as to groups protects them from discrimination but no legal recognition of differences or allocation of rights resources or duties on these sorts of basesAffirmative approval action understood as remedial discrimination temporary to help us achieve these goalsStrong influence of American race problems All about individualwe have some groupsuch as French and English We have recognition of affirmative action which is a remedial approach to bring up members of a particular groupIn the true liberal thinking that only be a temporary thingliberal would not be comfortable with permanent affirmative actionreject the idea of group specific rightsUS looks at affirmative action in the States in the 60s1Canada80s not a comfortable thinglots of liberals that reject to itTraditional human rights standards are simply unable to resolve some of the most important and controversial questions relating to cultural minorities such as below Majorities answer hard questions politically They didnt address these questionshave struggled with these questions and may not have come up with anything satisfactory for these questionshe talks about 3 ways we address minoritiesone is allowing selfgovernmentLanguage rights in educationElectoral boundariesImmigration and naturalization policy Aboriginal people selfgovernment SO he says that traditional human rights doctrines gives us no answer to these questions such asRight to free speechno answer to appropriate language policyRight to voteno answer on how political boundaries should be drawnhow powers should be distributed bw levels of govRight to mobilitydoes not tell us what an appropriate immigration and naturalization policy is Results To render give cultural minorities vulnerable to significant injustice at the hands of the majority and to exacerbate increase ethnocultural conflictWe need a theory of minority rights that fits into a liberal democracy I believe it is legitimate and indeed unavoidable to supplement traditional human rights with minority rights A comprehensive theory of justice in a multicultural state will include both universal rights assigned to individuals regardless of group membership and certain groupdifferentiated rights or special status for minority cultures 6He says we cannot avoid recognizing minority rightsit is considered heretical in Europethey dont agree with him they think multiculturalism is a huge fail in EuropeWe have to have universal rightswe may have to have some sort of differentiated rights for certain groupsspecial status as in different not treated more specialThe dangers Minority rights language has been used to dominate those outside the group and those who dissent within it Has justified segregation and apartheid A liberal theory of minority rights therefore must explain how minority rights coexist with human rights and how minority rights are limited by principles of individual liberty democracy and social justice That is the aim of this book 6Minority rights can be used to justify domination segregation apartheidHave to figure out a way to have these minority rights coexist with human rightshave to balance group rights with equality liberty all the basic principles of liberalism Outline of the bookCh 2 Definitions and descriptionsmultinational vs polyethnic states national minorities vs ethnic groups Different kinds of rights that might be given Multination states where cultural diversity arises from the incorporation of previously selfgoverning territorially concentrated cultures into a larger statenational minoritiesPolyethnic states where cultural diversity arises from individual and familial immigration 6in polyethnic statesCh 3 Relationship between collective and individual rights how the group relates to those inside and outside it Ch 4 History of liberalisms current skepticism about minority rightsCh 5 Role of culture based on a certain idea of personal autonomyCh 6 Three kinds of arguments for groupdifferentiated rightsCh 7 Political representation how minorities should be represented in legislatures selfgovernment by minoritiesCh 8 Minorities that attempt to restrict the liberties of their membersCh 9 Effect of groupdifferentiated rights on stability of the social orderCh 10 Speculations about future of multicultural citizenship2What is hate speech Sedition connectionBoucher advocating that one class of citizens commit violence against another classBrandenburg advocating violenceterrorism to promote industrial or political reform Hate speech and libelslanderSimilarities and differencesDamage to individual reputationin the case of defamation libelslander we are looking at an individuals reputationwith hate speech it is with a groupHate speech US law on group defamation Beauharnais v Illinois 343 US 250 1952US Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law that made it illegal to publish a writing or picture that portrayed the depravity criminality unchastity or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race color creed or religionCant publish something that would portray depravity criminality etc He had distributed a racist petition attacking African AmericansTreated as group defamation But Beauharnais has been undercut challengedNo longer is all defamation considered to be outside the First Amendment and the Supreme Court called for wide open public debate in New York Times v Sullivan 1964 which arose in the context of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s newspapers allowed to publish what was going on even if defamatory of southern governments and policeSo Beauharnais is viewed as highly shaky unreliable law although it has not been explicitly overruled In the US they have not come out and said we have defamation with the first amendmentUSSo in the US it seems doubtful that laws that explicitly criminalized hate speech would be constitutional Incitement to violence for clear and present danger can be punished Unconstitutional to limit speech even if it is hate speechIf you insight people to commit violence that can be punishedMillWe askedWhat is harmHow can one know what harm will flow from ones actions so as to determine ones liberty to perform a given action Is silencing this speech robbing posterity and the existing generation of a valuable opportunity to exchange error for truth Even if there is harm done should we use legal tools to prevent or punish it Which legal tools Two key passages from On Liberty 1 Harm principleThe only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of acivilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others 9 2 The appropriate domain of human libertyLiberty of conscience thought feeling freedom of thought on all subjects liberty of expressing and publishing opinions practically inseparable from freedom of thoughtLiberty of tastes and pursuits to shape our lives to suit our charactersFreedom to unite with others for any purpose not harmful to othersMore could be said Mills opinion does not seem to me to be fully clear here As Berlin says Mill seems to advocate diversity of opinion for its own sake rather than really believing in the emergence of a single truth 2353
More Less

Related notes for LWSO 413

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.