000469922 000__ 03184cam\a2200421\a\4500
000469922 001__ 469922
000469922 005__ 20220707103655.0
000469922 006__ m\\\\\o\\d\\\\\\\\
000469922 007__ cr\cn\nnnunnun
000469922 008__ 111109s2012\\\\mau\\\\\ob\\\\001\0\eng\d
000469922 010__ $$z2011046700
000469922 020__ $$a9780674065086$$qelectronic book
000469922 020__ $$z9780674065895$$qhardcover
000469922 035__ $$a(OCoLC)ocn806492790
000469922 035__ $$a(CaPaEBR)ebr10678700
000469922 035__ $$a469922
000469922 037__ $$a10.4159/harvard.9780674065086$$bDOI
000469922 040__ $$aCaPaEBR$$beng$$cCaPaEBR
000469922 043__ $$an-us---
000469922 05014 $$aKF9345$$b.W34 2012eb
000469922 08204 $$a345.73/0256$$223
000469922 1001_ $$aWaldron, Jeremy.
000469922 24514 $$aThe harm in hate speech$$h[electronic resource] /$$cJeremy Waldron.
000469922 260__ $$aCambridge, Mass. :$$bHarvard University Press,$$c2012.
000469922 300__ $$a1 online resource (vi, 292 p._
000469922 4900_ $$aThe Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 2009
000469922 504__ $$aIncludes bibliographical references (p. [235]-278) and index.
000469922 5050_ $$aApproaching hate speech -- Anthony Lewis's Freedom for the Thought That we Hate -- Why call hate speech group libel? -- The appearance of hate -- Protecting dignity or protection from offense? -- C. Edwin Baker and the autonomy argument -- Ronald Dworkin and the legitimacy argument -- Toleration and calumny.
000469922 506__ $$aAccess limited to authorized users.
000469922 520__ $$aEvery liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech, except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, the author argues that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense, by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example, is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group's dignity, according to the author, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. The author finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, he asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
000469922 588__ $$aDescription based on print version record.
000469922 650_0 $$aHate speech$$zUnited States.
000469922 650_0 $$aFreedom of speech$$xPhilosophy.
000469922 77608 $$iPrint version:$$aWaldron, Jeremy.$$tHarm in hate speech.$$dCambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 2012$$z9780674065895$$w(DLC) 2011046700$$w(OCoLC)758383685
000469922 85280 $$bebk$$hHarvard University Press
000469922 85640 $$3Harvard University Press$$uhttps://univsouthin.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086$$zOnline Access
000469922 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:469922$$pGLOBAL_SET
000469922 980__ $$aEBOOK
000469922 980__ $$aBIB
000469922 982__ $$aEbook
000469922 983__ $$aOnline