001403935 000__ 03222cam\a2200421\a\4500
001403935 001__ 1403935
001403935 005__ 20220707103710.0
001403935 006__ m\\\\\o\\d\\\\\\\\
001403935 007__ cr\cn\nnnunnun
001403935 008__ 220707s2012\\\\mau\\\\\ob\\\\001\0\eng\d
001403935 010__ $$z2011046700
001403935 020__ $$a9780674065086$$qelectronic book
001403935 020__ $$z9780674065895$$qhardcover
001403935 035__ $$a(OCoLC)ocn806492790
001403935 035__ $$a(CaPaEBR)ebr10678700
001403935 035__ $$a469922
001403935 037__ $$a10.4159/harvard.9780674065086$$bDOI
001403935 040__ $$aCaPaEBR$$beng$$cCaPaEBR
001403935 043__ $$an-us---
001403935 05014 $$aKF9345$$b.W34 2012eb
001403935 08204 $$a345.73/0256$$223
001403935 1001_ $$aWaldron, Jeremy.
001403935 24514 $$aThe harm in hate speech$$h[electronic resource] /$$cJeremy Waldron.
001403935 260__ $$aCambridge, Mass. :$$bHarvard University Press,$$c2012.
001403935 300__ $$a1 online resource (vi, 292 p._
001403935 4900_ $$aThe Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 2009
001403935 504__ $$aIncludes bibliographical references (p. [235]-278) and index.
001403935 5050_ $$aApproaching hate speech -- Anthony Lewis's Freedom for the Thought That we Hate -- Why call hate speech group libel? -- The appearance of hate -- Protecting dignity or protection from offense? -- C. Edwin Baker and the autonomy argument -- Ronald Dworkin and the legitimacy argument -- Toleration and calumny.
001403935 506__ $$aAccess limited to authorized users.
001403935 520__ $$aEvery liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech, except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, the author argues that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense, by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example, is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group's dignity, according to the author, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. The author finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, he asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
001403935 588__ $$aDescription based on print version record.
001403935 650_0 $$aHate speech$$zUnited States.
001403935 650_0 $$aFreedom of speech$$xPhilosophy.
001403935 77608 $$iPrint version:$$aWaldron, Jeremy.$$tHarm in hate speech.$$dCambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 2012$$z9780674065895$$w(DLC) 2011046700$$w(OCoLC)758383685
001403935 85280 $$bebk$$hProQuest Ebook Central Academic Complete
001403935 85640 $$3ProQuest Ebook Central Academic Complete$$uhttps://univsouthin.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/usiricelib/Doc?id=10678700$$zOnline Access
001403935 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:469922$$pGLOBAL_SET
001403935 980__ $$aEBOOK
001403935 980__ $$aBIB
001403935 982__ $$aEbook
001403935 983__ $$aOnline