In this paper I develop a systemic discrimination approach to defining a narrowly construed category of ‘hate speech’, as speech that harms to a sufficient degree to warrant government regulation. This is important due to the lack of definitional clarity, and the extraordinarily wide usage, of the term. This article extends current literature on how hate speech can harm by identifying under what circumstances speakers have the capacity to harm, and under what circumstances targets are vulnerable to harm. It also (...) shows how the capacity to harm can be mobile and involve the construction of new targets. Finally, it bridges the gap between conceptual understandings of hate speech and policy designed to regulate it. (shrink)

In this paper I develop a systemic discrimination approach to defining a narrowly construed category of ‘hate speech’, as speech that harms to a sufficient degree to warrant government regulation. This is important due to the lack of definitional clarity, and the extraordinarily wide usage, of the term. This article extends current literature on how hate speech can harm by identifying under what circumstances speakers have the capacity to harm, and under what circumstances targets are vulnerable to harm. It also (...) shows how the capacity to harm can be mobile and involve the construction of new targets. Finally, it bridges the gap between conceptual understandings of hate speech and policy designed to regulate it. (shrink)

This collection of thirteen new essays is the first to examine, from a range of disciplinary perspectives, how the new technologies and global reach of the Internet are changing the theory and practice of free speech.

Much of the most influential free speech scholarship emphasises that ‘political speech’ warrants the very highest standards of protection because of its centrality to self-governance. This central idea mitigates against efforts to justify the regulation of political speech and renders some egregiously offensive or harmful speech worthy of protection from a theoretical perspective. Yet paradoxically, in practice, in many liberal democracies such speech is routinely restricted. In this paper, I develop an argument that is compatible with both the argument from (...) democracy and the notion of political speech, and that can justify the regulation of hate speech, by joining an understanding of the constitutive role of speech in individuals’ lives derived from Nussbaum's capabilities theory with ideas of democratic deliberation and legitimation drawn from a Habermasian framework. This approach attends to the conditions required at an individual level for democratic legitimation to occur at a social level. It permits the development of a robust theoretical justification for the protection of a broad range of speech. It simultaneously provides a guiding framework for regulatory policy designed to ameliorate the effects of, and inhibit the expression of, that speech, which could imperil the conditions required for individuals to develop their own capabilities and which instantiates anti-democratic practice, and thus discourse, preventing the very communications required to perform democracy from being uttered. Thus, my argument also strengthens and transforms the argument from democracy as a justification for free speech protection more generally. (shrink)

The terms ‘hate’ and ‘hatred’ are increasingly used to describe the rationale of a kind of anti-Western terrorist-extremist speech. This discursively links this kind of terrorist-extremist speech with the well-known concept of ‘hate speech’, a link that suggests the two phenomena are more alike than they are unlike. In this article I interrogate the similarities and differences between anti-Western terrorist-extremist speech and hate speech as they manifest in Western liberal democratic states along two axes: to whom the speech is addressed, (...) and how harm is occasioned. Relying on a combination of philosophical conceptions and public policy empirics, I demonstrate that there are significant differences between the two types of speech, especially in their mechanisms of harm. The implications of this analysis are that these differences should be better understood in order to respond appropriately to these two distinct types of harmful speech. (shrink)

In recent years, free speech debates have featured unusually prominently in public debate in Australia. At the same time, significant restrictions on freedom of speech have been enacted in the context of counterterrorism legislation, asylum-seeker policy, and anti-protest laws. This article critically analyses these policy developments through the lens of a capabilities approach-informed analysis of the importance of free speech. This engenders an understanding of the constitutive role of speech in individuals’ lives, and through that its vital role in democratic (...) deliberation and legitimation. I will argue that many of the restrictions placed on free speech in Australia in recent years place democratic processes of deliberation and legitimation at risk. (shrink)

This paper seeks to remedy in part the lack of empirical studies on practices of.political speech in Australia by investigating local governments’ powers and perceptions of their role in regulating practices of political speech. It reports on the results of an empirical study conducted in 2003–04 of local government regulation of political speech within the public space constituted by pedestrian malls. Regulatory provisions are considered in the context of attitudes towards, and experiences of, practices of political speech within these arenas. (...) I argue that local governments possess wide ranging powers to regulate political speech in pedestrian malls, but further and more importantly that those powers are mediated via their inconsistent and at times arbitrary application, combined with a cultural hostility to political speech. We therefore see a precarious level of protection of opportunities for political communication, as well as an important politico-cultural component in determining the fate of political speech in Australia. I conclude by outlining an alternative ‘enabling principle’ against which local governments may reconsider and reconfigure their regulatory practices in relation to this important political freedom. (shrink)