That’s what it looks like, with this Joint U.S./Egypt draft U.N. Human Rights Council resolution (dated Sept. 2009). The resolution generally seems to be an attempt to urge more protection for free speech throughout the world, and some praise it for that; moreover, it lacks the exception for “defamation of religion” that some Muslim countries have urged. It may therefore be a step forward for Egypt, and an attempt to urge a step forward for some other countries.
But I’m worried that it might be a step backward for our own constitutional rights, because of what seems to be the U.S. endorsement of the suppression of “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and possibly of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups.” I say “seems to be” because some of the language in the resolution is pretty slippery, and of course it’s always possible that I’m misunderstanding it. (It’s also possible that past U.S. Administrations have taken similar views before, which I would condemn as well.) Here, though, is my thinking (all emphases added by me):
1. Paragraph 4 of the draft resolution “expresses ... concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations, to address and combat such incidents.”
2. Paragraph 6 likewise “[s]tresses that condemning and addressing, in accordance with international human rights obligations, including those regarding equal protection of the law, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is an important safeguard to ensure the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, particularly minorities.”
3. I suppose it’s possible that the “effective measures” might simply include denunciation or other counterspeech, but that seems unlikely. The resolution quotes favorably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Human Rights Council Resolution 7/36. And article 20 of the Covenant (which in turn is favorably cited by resolution 7/36) expressly commands that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This suggests that the urgings in paragraphs 4 and 6 (possibly limited to the “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” language but possibly even including the “incidents ... of negative stereotyping” language”) are urgings that such speech “be prohibited by law.”
4. Nor does this call for narrow prohibitions that would fit under the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow exception for “incitement.” My understanding is that international definitions of “incitement” are considerably broader than the Court’s definition in Brandenburg v. Ohio. First, I don’t think “incitement” in such international documents is generally seen as limited to intentional incitement to imminently likely conduct (our First Amendment rule). Second, advocacy of mere hostility — for instance advocacy that people should hate and be hostile to radical strains of Islam (and its adherents), or to Scientology, or to Catholicism, or to fundamentalist Christianity, or for that matter to religion generally — is clearly constitutionally protected here in the U.S.; but the resolution seems to call for its prohibition.
5. Paragraph 10 also “expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content.” That might indeed be just condemnation — and, depending on what it means, might be perfectly sound condemnation — and not a call for coercive action. But note that the language of “express[ing] regret” is softer than the earlier paragraphs’ calls for “addressing” and “taking effective measures ... to address and combat.” And the presence of this softer “express[ing] regret” language here reinforces my view that the more insistent language in the other paragraphs calls for coercive measures.
6. But why the fuss, some might ask, if we’re protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries — including the U.S. — should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed “hate speech” that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).
To be sure, I think it’s quite unlikely that the Administration would indeed work to enact a specific Anti-Hate-Speech Amendment, or make support of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into a litmus test for Supreme Court appointees. But it seems to me that the Administration’s and the Nation’s international representatives’ calling for the suppression of “hate speech” throughout the world would have some significance. At least it would let other countries fault us for inconsistency when American law fails to punish such speech.
7. And beyond that, I’m worried that the Executive Branch’s endorsement of speech-restrictive “international human rights” norms will affect how the courts interpret the First Amendment, so that over time, “an international norm against hate speech ... [would] supply a basis for prohibiting [hate speech], the First Amendment notwithstanding.” And that worry stems not just from my fevered imagination, but from the views of Prof. Peter Spiro, a noted legal academic who is a supporter of this tendency. That’s not fearmongering on his part, but hope (hopemongering?) and prediction. So anything that an Administration does to endorse international speech-restrictive norms might well have an effect on our own constitutional rights as well.
8. Finally, I’ve considered whether our reservation to the International Covenant, specifically saying that “Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States,” provides us with a loophole: The theory would be that the proposal only commits states to “take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations,” and our reservation means that suppressing supposed hate speech isn’t one of our “international human rights obligations.”
But I don’t think that’s a fair reading of the joint U.S./Egypt proposal, or at least the reading that fair third parties would take of our position. It seems to me that the proposals calls on everyone to act consistently with what the U.N. Human Rights Council and similar bodies see as everyone’s “international human rights obligations” — which unfortunately includes an obligation to ban supposed hate speech — and not just what each country has expressly promised by the treaties they signed, subject to the reservations they attached.
In any case, that’s my tentative thinking; please let me know what you think.
Martinned says:
As you already mention the problem with these kinds of resolutions (i.e. pretty much any resolution except the UN Security Council kind) is that it is unclear whether conceptually this is a legal issue or a diplomatic one.
Diplomatically, as you say, this can be a useful way to improve speech rights across the world. But viewing that argument from a legal point of view, it seems a bit condacending: “This is the rule we’ve negotiated, which would be an improvement for all you lesser developed nations, but we have a better system still, so we’re going to ignore this resolution.” Viewed legally, this seems like proposing a rule for the whole world that the US never intends to take seriously for itself.
I think you mustn’t exaggerate the potential influence this resolution might have on the domestic legal order of any UN member, including the US. That is not its purpose. It is not drafted to be a directly applicable legal document, and you shouldn’t analyse it that way. Paragraph 4 certainly contemplates coercive measures, as they are possible in virtually all states on earth, but you can’t read it as requiring such measures. The verb is “urge”. This is not law.
Overall, I understand why you would have points of concern, but viewed as a diplomatic instrument, this resolution seems like an excellent idea. If they can get the Human Rights Council to adopt this, that would be one of the less useless things that council will do this year.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:17 pmGrigor says:
I always kind of have to laugh when I read the baroque claptrap that makes up a UN resolution. Eight pages of the verbal equivalent of smiling and bowing meant, ostensibly, to promote freedom of opinion and expression.
I have a better-worded resolution:
The Human Rights Council,
Recognizing that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society,
1. Calls upon all States:
To make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
—–
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:34 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Constitutional issue aside, Americans believe that the right of free speech is a natural right possessed by all people. We ought not to be putting America’s imprimatur on a document that infringes on a natural right, even if it affects only non-Americans.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:47 pmModa says:
Thanks for coming here and posting that. I wasn’t sure what I believed, but now that you’ve clarified it for me, I feel much better.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:52 pmPeteP says:
Just another example of how the Chicago Mafia that is now running this country is going to destroy it, in advocacy of their beloved New World Order, in which the USA is secondary to ‘international groups’, and indeed is held equal with, let us say, the Congo, or perhaps Belize, or Luxemburg, etc.
The HRC is a known rogue group of leftist and Islamic states, and its only purpose is to try to embarass and lessen the USA.
By even accepting a seat ( indeed, pursuing it ), Obama has put us on a collision course with debates that we would be better off rejecting out of hand.
Now he goes even further, and advocates those very debates against America.
A sad day indeed.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:06 pmConstantin says:
Good. I hope they enact this and everything it entails. I dare them. Let’s have everyone lay their cards on the table.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:23 pmNorthern Dave says:
Correct me if I’ve got the summary wrong, but isn’t it part of the Official Summary of H.R.262 that:
“Requires the head of each federal agency to establish prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs and services relating to hate crimes for employees.”
I’m trying to see how this in combination with support of the HRC resolution in question would apply to some wee Southern Baptist Tresury Bookeeper who refused to agree that all systems of thought were equally valid. Would she be sent to a re-education center? Who gets to determine the curriculum?........
I guess I’m trying to get a handle on the package.
(Currently here in Canada there seems to be a stepping away from the brink: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hate-speech-law-violates-charter-rights-tribunal-rules/article1273956/)
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:25 pmtjbbpgobIII says:
Does this mean we can’t rank the Mexicans anymore.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:26 pmRAH says:
This is a dangerous road. Look what Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant had to put up with hate speech codes in Canada.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:59 pmPeteP says:
“This is a dangerous road. Look what Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant had to put up with hate speech codes in Canada.”
You think THAT’s bad, look at Egypt, or any Muslim country ! THAT is where the Muslim-dominated HRC wants to lead the world, THAT is what they think is ‘right’.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:09 pmbillo says:
It’s a natural extension of the interpretation that “Freedom of Religion” means “Freedom from Religion.” Once it becomes a natural right to censor speech that one finds disagreeable in one area, it becomes equally correct to censor it in others. The folk who praise the censorship of religious speech should not be surprised that minor variants would eventually be used by statists to attack *all* free speech.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:17 pmJoe says:
Future liberal academics and judges will cite resolutions like this to claim the existence of a “compelling interest” in banning “hate speech” that overrides free speech rights. Cf. Roberts v. Jaycees (1984) (Supreme Court held that compelling interest in eradicating discrimination overrode First Amendment freedom of expressive association); Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S. (holding that consensus against racial discrimination created compelling interest that overrode college’s First Amendment rights); but see Boy Scouts v. Dale (2000) (5-to-4 ruling refusing to allow state interest in discrimination to override freedom of expressive association).
The problem with that is that the definitions of hate speech employed by international bodies, UN agencies, and Third World judiciaries are grossly overbroad. Worse, “hate speech” laws are commonly used in Third World countries to suppress advocacy of the rights of ethnic and linguistic minority groups. In practice, hate speech laws are used in most of the world to silence dissent, not protect vulnerable minorities.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:19 pmFreeSpeechLitmusTest says:
I’ve long thought that the best test of free speech in a country is the following: go to the steps in front of the main government building (the equivalent of the White House, the Capitol, whatever).
Repeatedly shout each of the following through a megaphone:
1. [The head of government] is an idiot and a criminal, and he is ruining this country. This is an oppressive regime that violates human rights!
2. [Religion X] is based on lies and its followers are brainwashed idiots. Their leaders are nutjobs and they oppress their followers. Adherents of [Religion X] are responsible for all of the violence and hatred throughout the world!
3. We should replace this government with a [democratic/theocratic] one. The time for revolution is at hand!
4. I believe that [majority ethnic/religious group] has unfairly oppressed and enslaved [minority ethnic/religious group] and they must stand trial for their crimes!
Observe:
1. How long it takes before you are arrested or sued;
2. What you are convicted of/held liable for; and
3. Wow long a prison sentence you serve/how large a fine you pay.
In the US, the answer would be:
1. Never
2. Nothing
3. None
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:23 pmBorris says:
“The time for bickering is over”
Stunned, stunned to find The Left attempting to limit free speech. Why this has never been done before.
Standard Leftist playbook. Criminalize the ability of dissenters to argue with you.
Just look at the Orwellianly named University “Free Speech Zones”
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:28 pmAlex Bensky says:
Alas,Person From Porlock, there are people in the legal and political fields who do think “hate speech” should not be covered by the First Amendment, and you need only look at university campuses to see how broadly “hate speech” is defined. I have more than once heard that “free speech isn’t hate speech.” The answer, of course, is, “Yes, it is.” There is no constitutional right not to be offended, at least so far. But that there is or should be such a right is not a fringe idea.
Given the tendency of people like Ruth Ginsburg to look at (some) foreign cases and laws, I don’t think putting this thing on the books anywhere with a US signature is a good idea.
The amusing thing, in a grim sort of way, is that of course if the Arab states took this seriously they’d all be guilty of it up and down. But no one reading this has to be told that this sort of idea bans only speech against Islam. Does anyone actually think that if Egypt signs it that it’s unceasing spewing of anti-Semitism would be affected in the slightest?
In anyc ase, as a couple of commentators have said above, the United States ought to make it plain in a world forum that free speech means free speech, not speech no one objects to. I doubt the current adminsitration will say anything like that.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:31 pmA. Zarkov says:
About 1910 a man went out into a major street in Berlin screaming, “The Kaiser is an idiot– the Kaiser is an idiot.” The police immediately grab him and haul him off for hate speech against he monarch. But he protests, “I was talking about the Austrian Kaiser.” The policeman laughs and tells the man, “Nonsense, you can’t fool us– we know who the idiot is!”
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:42 pmH Tuttle says:
It’s getting increasingly difficult to believe ANYTHING coming out of this administration — on any issue. Given the violence done to Constitutional limits on Congressional power (Raich anyone), I fully expect to be in federal prison at some point in my life — though I expect I won’t have a clue as to what “law” I actually violated until formally charged.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:53 pmMithras says:
Crap. To the extent that the resolution calls for legal action against incitement, that’s permitted under the Free Speech clause now. To the extent that the resolution calls for condemnation of hate speech that isn’t incitement, that’s permitted under U.S. law, too.
So what’s the point of this post? Volokh: “Maybe I can gin up a fake controversy like Bernstein did about that HRW guy.”
Quote
October 1, 2009, 9:06 pmDavid Nieporent says:
No, it isn’t. You need to re-read Brandenburg.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 9:41 pmDNJ says:
I quite understand EV’s concerns, and I share them to some extent. However, resolutions of international organisations are often vaguely-worded compromises that let states with different views all vote for it while interpreting it differently. This seems like a classic case of that.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:03 pmDavid Schwartz says:
DNJ: That’s a reason not to take it as a serious threat, but it’s also a good reason to oppose it.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:11 pmThe Unbeliever says:
As long as it’s typical UN-type output–weak, no legal power, no intention of enforcement, no impact directly or indirectly on our domestic judicial system–I’m fine with it. Unfortunately we seem to have a President who may take the UN seriously, particularly when they put out proposals filled with weasel words.
I know it’s not fashionable to compliment George W Bush, but given the UN’s current incarnation, his attitude towards it struck me as being exactly right: take it seriously when dealing with/legitimizing the use of force... and ignore it when miscellaneous tyrants and bureaucrats start up committees and summits.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:17 pmDNJ says:
David Schwartz,
Well, perhaps, but this resolution seems better than anything else on freedom of speech that the Council is likely to pass. In this respect, I tend to agree with Martinned.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:18 pmRicardo says:
Indeed, Republicans or Conservatives would never, ever think of setting up “free speech zones.”
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:25 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is the Obama Administration … - Pasarici.NET Blog says:
[...] post: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is the Obama Administration … Share and [...]
Relic says:
Ricardo,
Hate to break it to you, but requiring a protest permit,and limiting the protest’s reach isn’t a new thing.
Why are we even part of the UN? It seems like international negotiations would be much more productive if our leaders just sat down with the other effected heads of state instead of attempting to seek approval from an organization largely composed of bigots and tyrants.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 12:15 amCato The Elder says:
I daresay the good professor has been invaded with the spirit of Glenn Beck, that deranged destroyer of the discourse. To the stakes! To the kindling! To the Star Chamber!
Quote
October 2, 2009, 12:54 amRicardo says:
Never said otherwise, so no need to regret breaking the news. Rather, I was amused that a commenter felt that “free speech zones” were some kind of leftist ploy and was seemingly oblivious to the widespread use of such zones by the Secret Service under the Bush Administration.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 2:17 amSarcastro says:
You nuance people are dumb to give up this obvious chance to yell about how the left wants to silence us all like a Muslim Hitler would. Arguments are for suckers who like to type a lot.
[Also, at this early hour I totally read “deranged lobster of the discourse.” It was a pretty awesome half a second before I corrected.]
Quote
October 2, 2009, 3:59 amMartinned says:
I thought the problem with those activist judges was that they vote their policy preferences regardless of whether they have any legal excuse to do so? In that case, how would this resolution make things worse? If there are five votes on the Supreme Court to exempt hate speech from first amendment protection, they don’t need a UN HRC resolution to give them an excuse, they can just make up the exception out of whole cloth, like they did with all the other exceptions. Given the power of the US Supreme Court, there’s very little that can restrain them if five of them agree.
This draft resolution is full of good things, but it is not law. And it’s not meant to be, either. The “hate speech” line that EV quoted (scare quotes because I’m not sure that hate speech is the best way to describe it) is to be applied in the context of the constitutional tradition of every state. In Saudi-Arabia, you get caned for insulting Mohammed, in the US you get a strongly worded editorial in the New York Times.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 4:36 ambillo says:
“In the US, the answer would be:
1. Never
2. Nothing
3. None
”
Well, no.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 4:41 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » EUGENE VOLOKH: Is the Obama Administration Supporting Calls to Outlaw Supposed Hate Speech? Given … says:
[...] VOLOKH: Is the Obama Administration Supporting Calls to Outlaw Supposed Hate Speech? Given their record of calling anyone who disagrees with them racist, it seems likely . . . [...]
pablo panadero says:
With many on the Supreme Court willing to cite “international law” as a foundation of their decisions, this is merely the back door to imposing this restriction of liberty on US citizens.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 6:54 amBilwick says:
Remember, there’s really no such thing as “paranoia” when dealing with statists. Any power they can grab, eventually they will grab.
I think it was Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit who said that first it’s “No one is seriously advocating {X] . . . ” and then it becomes, “What would be so bad about having [X] . . . ?” I would add that then it becomes: “Only a moron/racist/bought dog of the capitalists (take your pick) would oppose {X] . . . ”
Quote
October 2, 2009, 7:19 amJDS13 says:
I can’t believe the UN will pass this without an exception to allow defamation of Israel.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 7:51 amHoward Friedman says:
Note a typo in your citation– the date of the document is Sept. 2009, not Sept. 2005. [Whoops, fixed, thanks!]
Quote
October 2, 2009, 7:59 amBillll says:
Would not paragraph 4 immediately ban the practice of Islam, and the publication of the Koran?
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:11 ambandit says:
Look at the comments on HuffPo and almost every one supports criminalizing any speech they don’t agree with — the new totalitarians.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:30 amSuperSkeptic says:
“hopemongering”
LOL — I dare say Professor Volokh just coined a great new term.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 9:09 amObama administration supporting a global ban on “hate speech” « Internet Scofflaw says:
[...] administration supporting a global ban on “hate speech” More evidence of the administration’s ambivalence towards free [...]
ADF Alliance Alert » Is the Obama administration supporting calls to outlaw supposed hate speech? says:
[...] Eugene Volokh: “That’s what it looks like, with this Joint U.S./Egypt draft U.N. Human Rights Council resolution (dated Sept. 2005) . . . I’m worried that it might be a step backward for our own constitutional rights, because of what seems to be the U.S. endorsement of the suppression of ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’ and possibly of ‘negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups.’” [...]
Montjoie says:
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen case law holding that a treaty that violates Americans’ Constitutional rights is void. Maybe time to pull that one out again? I don’t have the cite at my fingertips, though.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 10:47 amMartinned says:
Here’s the findlaw annotation on the matter, including plenty of case law.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 11:05 amConstitutionalist says:
I would guess they think this resolution would give them the legal imprimatur to force the “rehabilitation” of any individual guilty of “hate” speech (i.e., any speech counter to their agenda). For some reason, it doesn’t surprise me any that this administration would jump on board something like this.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 11:10 amDaily Right 10/2/09 « The Quantum Conservative says:
[...] *Is the Obama Administration Supporting Calls to Outlaw Supposed Hate Speech? By Eugene Volokh. [...]
Mithras says:
And did you know the Democrats are just waiting to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine and make Glenn Beck illegal??
It’s true! I saw speculation about it on some rightwing website someplace.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 3:58 pmRicardo says:
I agree reference to foreign law has no place in First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decisions that refer to the practices of other countries in outlawing obscenity (Miller v. U.S., IIRC made such an explicit reference) should be revisited.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 8:38 pmRich Rostrom says:
The United States should not officially support, as matter of principle, policies or enactments which contradict our own fundamental laws and principles.
Second, there is no chance whatever of the Covenant ever being applied to the corrupt dictatorships, terrorism supporters, political demagogues, and pseudo-religious fascists that are the main emitters of “hate speech”. It is very likely to be used against honest critics of Islamic culture; it will never be used against the government of Syria for publishing the blood libel against Jews.
It will deform and weaken the societies of many countries which do not have robust civil liberties. It will do nothing to detoxify the hate-filled societies which spawn terrorism.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 10:02 pmJB says:
Suppressing political speech encourages political violence.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 10:54 pmMartinned says:
You do realise the Covenant, i.e. the ICCPR, and its brother the ICESCR, have been around for several decades already? They have nothing to do with the Human Rights Council and are not, on the whole, the topic of conversation here.
Quote
October 3, 2009, 7:10 amCatching up on random things… » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog says:
[...] Then again we apparently do want to control this? [...]
Weekly Web Watch 09/28/09 – 10/4/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH says:
[...] wonders whether U.S. involvement with a resolution before the U.N. Human Rights Commission could be a step backwards for U.S. free speech rights. The resolution, dated 2005, can be read to impose on the U.S. an obligation to suppress hate [...]
Dajjal says:
The ambiguity & abstraction are intentional. Fortunately, we have precedents which deliar them. Ban Ki-moon, in condemning the Geert Wilders video, Fitna, said there was no license for hate speech or incitement to violence. His condemnation fits the video’s subject matter, not the video itself.
The resolution contains boilerplate from previous resolutions, exposing its true purpose. My blog post “Freedom of Opinion and Expression”,includes a list of previous posts which contain some of the details.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 10:44 pmAdam says:
I truly do not understand how U.S. support for this resolution can be squared with the U.S. boycott of Durban II on pretty much the same issue, this very year.
Quote
October 6, 2009, 5:53 pmBlawg Review #233 | Popehat says:
[...] libertarians, who view the concept of “defamation of religion” with great suspicion. Eugene Volokh has some concerns about the revised resolution brokered by the United Sates and Egypt, and Kenneth [...]
James Leeson says:
In the U.S. college hate speech codes have been used to punish college students for criticizing affirmative action, supporting the death penalty against arguments that it is racially biased, and calling homosexuality immoral. See Brief of Amici Curiae Students for Individual Liberty, et al., in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 1998 WL 847365 (filed in the Supreme Court, December 8, 1998) (citing examples and related news stories) (available in Westlaw database).
Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:59 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Stuart Taylor on Obama Administration’s Endorsement of Restricting “Advocacy of Religious Hatred That Constitutes Incitement to Hostility” says:
[...] Obama Administration’s cosponsored U.N. Human Rights Council resolution puts it on record as urging other countries “to take effective measures, consistent with their [...]
The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Speech and the Flaws of International Human Rights Law says:
[...] reasons indicated by co-blogger Eugene Volokh (here , here, and here), Jonathan Turley, and others, the resolution does indeed justify gross infringements on freedom of [...]