Available in Russian
Author: Aleksandr Kul'nev
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2024-3-43-68
Keywords: bad tendency; freedom of speech in the United States; freedom of expression in the United States; harm from speech; hate speech law
A significant part of restrictions on speech is based on a two-step model of harm: speech is prosecuted because it poses a risk of legally sanctionable consequences. This is how hate speech laws in many countries around the world are constructed. In the United States, the application of such laws is blocked by the standard established by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio: statements cannot be restricted unless they present an imminent and highly probable threat of lawless action. Historically, American law permitted the prosecution of statements with a “bad tendency”, that is, those that could bring harm in the future. This principle, firmly established at the beginning of the 20th century, discredited itself by being a basis for political persecution during World War I. In the 1920s, Justices O.Holmes and L.Brandeis criticized this practice and the prevailing legal standard. They were the first to assert that the prosecution of speech is permissible only if it presents a “clear and present danger” of a prohibited harm. The position of Holmes and Brandeis, supported by a Court majority in the 1940s, did not withstand the period of McCarthyism. Justifying the criminal convictions of leaders of the Communist Party USA, the Supreme Court returned the harmful speech doctrine to its original point. The Brandenburg standard, adopted by the court in 1969, marked the victory of opponents of censorship: speech cannot be prosecuted unless it poses an imminent and highly probable threat of serious harm. The doctrine has not changed, but its robustness is being tested by contemporary challenges. Due to the rapid development of communication technologies, some consider it outdated and inadequate to modern threats. However, the arguments of censorship proponents are not so new themselves. They are the same as those advanced during the anti-communist hysteria that shaped the American doctrine. The Brandenburg standard represents a well-considered legal position that very carefully assesses various risks. Society and State institutions tend to overestimate the danger of statements, thus complicating the proof of this danger. This does not, however, hinder the prosecution of actual (as opposed to verbal) crimes, nor does it impede citizens’ independent efforts to combat ideas they consider dangerous.
Citation: Kulnev A. (2024) Svoboda slova i potentsial'nyy vred ot vyskazyvaniy v prave SShA: istoricheskiy put' i sovremennye vyzovy [Freedom of speech and harm from speech in U.S. law: the historical path and contemporary challenges]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.33, no.3, pp.43–68. (In Russian).
References
Alexander L. (2005) Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Appleman B. (1995). Hate Speech: A Comparison of the Approaches Taken by the United States and Germany. Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol.14, no.2, pp.422–439.
Beale J. (1902) Criminal Attempts. Harvard Law Review, vol.16. pp.491–507.
Blackstone W. (1979) Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765–1769, vol.1, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Blasi V. (1985) The Pathological Perspective and the First Amendment. Columbia Law Review, vol.85, no.4, pp.449–514.
Chafee Z., Jr. (1919) Freedom of Speech in the Wartime. Harvard Law Review, vol.32, no.8, pp.932–973.
Chafee Z., Jr. (1941) Free Speech in the United States, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hawkins H.S. (2004) A Sliding Scale Approach for Evaluating the Terrorist Threat over the Internet. The George Washington Law Review, vol.73, pp.633–648.
Healy T. (2013) The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind — and Changed the History of Free Speech in America, New York: Metropolitan Books.
Heinze E. (2016) Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes O.W., Jr. (1963) The Common Law, Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Kahn R.A. (2005) Cross-Burning, Holocaust Denial, and the Development of Hate Speech Law in the United States and Germany. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, vol.83, pp.163–194.
Kalenskiy V.G. (1983) Bill' o pravakh v konstitutsionnoy istorii SSHA (istoriko-kriticheskoe issledovanie): monografiya [Bill of Rights in the constitutional history of the USA (historical-critical study): a monograph], Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).
Kamatali J.-M. (2015) The Limits of the First Amendment: Protecting American Citizens’ Free Speech in the Era of the Internet and the Global Marketplace of Ideas. Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol.33, no.4, pp.587–638.
Kirby J.P. (2012) The Case of the German Socialist Farmers: Joe Kirby Challenges the Espionage Act of 1917. South Dakota History, vol.42, no.3, pp.237–255.
Kudryavtsev V.N., Leneev V.V., Naumov A.V. (eds.) (2006) Ugolovnoe pravo Rossii. Osobennaya chast': uchebnik dlya vuzov [Criminal law of Russia. Special part: a textbook for universities], Moscow: Yurist'. (In Russian).
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).
Lee W.E., Stewart D.R., Peters J. (2020) The Law of Public Communication, 11th ed., New York: Routledge.
Lidsky L.B. (2010) Nobody’s Fools: The Rational Audience as First Amendment Ideal. University of Illinois Law Review, vol.2010, no.3, pp.799–850.
Neier A. (1979) Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom, New York: E.P.Dutton.
Novick S.M. (1991) The Unrevised Holmes and Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court Review, pp.303–390.
O’Brian J.L. (1919) Civil Liberty in War Time. Report of the New York Bar Association, vol.62, pp.275–307.
Post R. (2020) Writing the Dissent in Abrams. Seton Hall Law Review, vol.51, no.1, pp.21–39.
Powe L.A., Jr. (2011) Brandenburg: Then and Now. Texas Tech Law Review, vol.44, pp.69–83.
Rabban D.M. (1977) Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Redish M.H. (1982) Advocacy of Unlawful Conduct and the First Amendment: In Defense of Clear and Present Danger. California Law Review, vol.70, pp.1159–1200.
Redish M.H. (2006) The Logic of Persecution. Free Speech and the McCarthy Era, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Scanlon T. (1972) A Theory of Freedom of Expression. Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol.1, no.2, pp.204–226.
Schultz E.P. (2000) Group Rights, American Jews, and the Failure of Group Libel Law, 1913–1952. Brooklyn Law Review, vol.66, no.1, pp.71–145.
Schultz D., Vile J.R. (eds.) (2015) The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America, New York: Routledge.
Stone G.R. (2002) The Origins of the “Bad Tendency” Test: Free Speech in Wartime. The Supreme Court Review, vol.2002, pp.411–453.
Strossen N. (2018) HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, New York: Oxford University Press.
Tanenbaum R.S. (2006) Preaching Terror: Free Speech or Wartime Incitement? American University Law Review, vol.55, no.3, pp.785–819.
Tourkochoriti I. (2014) Should Hate Speech Be Protected? Group Defamation, Party Bans, Holocaust Denial and the Divide Between (France), Europe and the United States. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, vol.45, no.2, pp.552–622.
Tsesis A. (2017) Terrorist Speech on Social Media. Vanderbilt Law Review, vol.70, no.2, pp.651–708.
Verkhovskiy A.M. (ed.) (2002) Yazyk moy… Problema etnicheskoy i religioznoy neterpimosti v rossiyskikh SMI [My language… The problem of ethnic and religious intolerance in the Russian media], Moscow: ROO “Tsentr ‘Panorama’”. (In Russian).
Vile J.R. (2009) Ruthenberg v. Michigan (1927). Available at: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/191/ruthenberg-v-michigan (accessed: 14.09.2024).
Walker S. (1994) Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Wang J. (2022) The US Capitol Riot: Examining the Rioters, Social Media, and Disinformation: MA Thesis, Harvard University.
Weaver R.L. (2011) Brandenburg and Incitement in a Digital Era. Mississippi Law Journal, vol.80, no.1, pp.1263–1288.
Wells C.E. (2019) Assumptions about “Terrorism” and the Brandenburg Incitement Test. Brooklyn Law Review, vol.85, no.1, pp.111–147.
Wilson R.A., Kiper J. (2020) Incitement in an Era of Populism: Updating Brandenburg after Charlottesville. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Public Affairs, vol.5, no.2, pp.57–121.