Available in Russian
Author: Alexander Kul’nev
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2023-4-93-121
Keywords: hate speech; hate speech law; human dignity; freedom of speech; freedom of expression
This article critically examines the rationale behind prohibiting hate speech and the significant harm it causes. Drawing upon concepts from legislation, scholarship, and judicial practice, we identify two prominent models that capture the essence of these concepts. The first model posits that harm resulting from hate speech manifests itself not immediately, but in the future. It attributes the responsibility for this harm to the recipients of the message who, under its influence, engage in illegal acts such as violence or discrimination. The two-step harmfulness model, as we refer to it, presupposes a separate stage of message perception by a listener during the harm-causing process. The second model, in contrast, treats hate speech as directly undermining protected values and the legally established rights of others. Advocates of this model contend that certain words, by their very content, contradict the principles of equality and human dignity. We term this model the a priori approach, as the actual or hypothetical consequences of statements are deemed irrelevant for individual accountability. Taking Germany as a case study, we find that its legislative prohibitions on hate speech, enshrined in national laws, align with the two-step harmfulness model. Attempts to establish the a priori model, specifically through a framework of group insults, have proven to be both overly restrictive of discourse and inconsistent in addressing Holocaust denial. Further, we explore sources advocating for the a priori harmfulness of hate speech. These include hate speech provisions of international human rights documents, which are based on the value of equality, and the writings of contemporary jurists who uphold the prohibition of hate speech based on the concept of human dignity. Upon analyzing the arguments in favor of this position, we conclude that it runs counter to the traditional understanding of principles of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and democratic principles. In addition, proponents of the a priori model significantly deviate from empirical reality in their arguments. Reviewing the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, we observe that the two-step harmfulness model, despite its inherent limitations, remains the applicable foundation for laws addressing hate speech. Its evaluative nature renders it unsuitable for consistent application. Consequently, accepting this model perpetuates a situation where courts and lawmakers inadvertently make democratic societies’ crucial civil freedoms and public discourse hostages to fortune.
About the author: Alexander Kul’nev – Ph.D. Student, Faculty of Law, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Kulnev A. (2023) Zapret razzhiganiya nenavisti v sovremennom prave: nauka i praktika v poiskakh nadyozhnogo obosnovaniya [Hate speech laws in modern jurisprudence: in search of a reliable foundation]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 93–121. (In Russian).
References
Allport G. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice, New York: Doubleday.
Bleich E. (2014) Freedom of Expression versus Racist Hate Speech: Explaining Differences Between High Court Regulations in the USA and Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 283–300.
Brugger W. (2003) The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law. German Law Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–44.
Calvert C. (1998) The First Amendment and the Third Person: Perceptual Biases of Media Harms and Cries for Government Censorship. CommLaw Conspectus: Journal of Communications Law and Technology Policy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 165–171.
Collings J. (2015) Democracy’s Guardians: A History of the German Federal Constitutional Court 1951–2001, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Delgado R. (1982) Words That Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling. Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 133–181.
Dworkin R. (2009) Foreword. In: Hare I., Weinstein J. (eds.) Extreme Speech and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. iii–ii.
Faiola A. (2016) Germany Springs to Action over Hate Speech against Migrants. The Washington Post, 6 January. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-to-action-over-hate-speech-against-migrants/2016/01/06/6031218e-b315-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html (accessed: 25.08.2023).
Farrior S. (1996) Molding the Matrix: The Historical and Theoretical Foundations of International Law and Practice Concerning Hate Speech. Berkeley Journal of International Law, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–98.
Felson R. (1996) Mass Media Effects on Violent Behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 22, pp. 103–128.
Gey S. (1996) The Case against Postmodern Censorship Theory. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 193–297.
Golovnenkov P.V. (2021) Ugolovnoe ulozhenie Federativnoy Respubliki Germaniya. Nauchno-prakticheskiy kommentariy i perevod teksta zakona [Criminal code of the Federal Republic of Germany: commentary and translation of the text of the law], Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. (In Russian).
Hayes M., Samaha A., Ansari T. (2017) “Imagine Being Surrounded by People Who Hate You and Want to See You Dead”. BuzzFeed, 27 September. Available at: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikehayes/we-found-154-incidents-of-college-hate-speech-and-violence (accessed: 25.08.2023).
Heinze E. (2016) Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heinze E. (2018) Towards a Legal Concept of Hatred: Democracy, Ontology, and the Limits of Deconstruction. In: Brudholm T., Johansen B. (eds.) Hate, Politics, Law: Critical Perspectives on Combating Hate, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 94–114.
Heyman S. (2009) Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment. In: Hare I., Weinstein J. (eds.) Extreme Speech and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 158–181.
Holzapfel C. (2014) Can I Say That?: How an International Blasphemy Law Pits the Freedom of Religion against the Freedom of Speech. Emory International Law Review, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 597–648.
Kahn R. (2004) Holocaust Denial and the Law: A Comparative Study, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kirschbaum E. (2016) In Germany, It Can Be a Crime to Insult Someone in Public. Los Angeles Times, 6 September. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-insult-law-snap-story.html (accessed: 25.08.2023).
Kohut T., Landripet I., Štulhofer A. (2021) Testing the Confluence Model of the Association Between Pornography Use and Male Sexual Aggression: A Longitudinal Assessment in Two Independent Adolescent Samples from Croatia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 647–665.
Krotoszynski R., Jr. (2003) A Comparative Perspective on the First Amendment: Free Speech, Militant Democracy, and the Primacy of Dignity as a Preferred Constitutional Value in Germany. Tulane Law Review, vol. 78, pp. 1549–1609.
Lawrence C., III (1990) If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus. Duke Law Journal, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 431–483.
Matsuda M. (1989) Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story. Michigan Law Review, vol. 87, no. 8, pp. 2320–2381.
McGinnis J., Somin I. (2009) Democracy and International Human Rights Law. Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 1739–1798.
Mchangama J. (2011) The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws. Policy Review, vol. 170, pp. 45–58.
Morsink J. (1999) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Parekh B. (2012) Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech? In: Herz M., Molnar P. (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–56.
Pinker S. (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, New York: Penguin Books.
Rao N. (2013) Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law. Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 183–272.
Schillig K.-P. (2017) Pamphlete gegen Flüchtlinge: 66-jähriger Wertheraner kommt mit Bewährungsstrafe davon. Westfalen-Blatt, 16. Januar. Available at: https://www.westfalen-blatt.de/owl/kreis-guetersloh/werther/drei-monate-wegen-volksverhetzung-1547323 (accessed: 10.05.2023).
Simpson R. (2013) Dignity, Harm, and Hate Speech. Law and Philosophy, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 701–728.
Stein E. (1986) History against Free Speech: The New German Law against the “Auschwitz” – and Other – “Lies”. Michigan Law Review, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 277–324.
Strauss D.A. (1991) Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression. Columbia Law Review, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 334–371.
Temperman J. (2015) Religious Hatred and International Law: The Prohibition of Incitement to Violence or Discrimination, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsesis A. (2009) Dignity and Speech: The Regulation of Hate Speech in a Democracy. Wake Forest Law Review, vol. 44, pp. 497–532.
Verkhovskiy A. (ed.) (2007) Yazyk vrazhdy protiv obshchestva: sbornik statey [Hate speech against the public: a collection of articles], Moscow: Tsentr “Sova”. (In Russian).
Waldron J. (2010) Dignity and Defamation: The Visibility of Hate. Harvard Law Review, vol. 123, no. 7, pp. 1596–1657.
Waldron J. (2014) The Harm in Hate Speech, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitman J.Q. (1998) Enforcing Civility and Respect: Three Societies. The Yale Law Journal, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 1279–1398.
Zuriff G. (2002) Inventing Racism. Public Interest, no. 146, pp. 114–128.