Hateful Speech Double Standards
Hateful speech and double standards is defined as a type of speech that attacks a person or group based on aspects such as gender, ethnic origin, religion and unjustly applies that principle or characteristic towards a specific group of people. Brugger, W., 2002. Ban on or protection of hate speech-some observations based on German and American law. Tul. Eur. & Civ. LF, 17, p.1.Throughout time there has been many arguments regarding the freedom of expression and the Hate-speech restriction in Europe and what can be done to better the issue, which has been explicitly discussed through the paper published by the University of Wisconsin Press by Thomas M. Keck. This Human rights dilemma, identifies specific ways in which the issue can be attacked
…show more content…
Therefore, a way to deal with this issue is to figure out ways to improve the already existing laws that are put in place. Keck clearly discusses the current hate speech laws that differ across the nations of Europe showing that many “European legislatures repeatedly ban the public expression of some forms of hateful speech, but only incite to violence against members of vulnerable groups or ban group based defamation.” Keck M.T, 2016 Hate Speech and Double Standards, University of Wisconsin Press Constitutional studies, volume 1, issue 1 pg. 96- 97 Avoiding everything that is entailed in the definition of what hate crime is and picking and choosing what is important to protect for individuals, causing the European hate speech laws to vary as wells as not consistently prosecuting the violator in some cases, although they share “common core norms”. Therefore, I strongly agree with Keck, when saying that the already existing laws should be expanded to outline all the aspects of hateful speech and double standards, meaning that nations and leaders of Europe should come together to a collective agreement regarding what should be outlined in the laws. Although I do understand that, that would be an effective way to deal with the issue in an ideal world, but would not be so easy as each leader of a nation would have different views and …show more content…
The current hate speech laws across the European states should be amended, since the law does not focus on all groups that are vulnerable to hate speech, causing minority groups to be unprotected by the law. Keck M.T, 2016 Hate Speech and Double Standards, University of Wisconsin Press Constitutional studies, volume 1, issue 1 pg. 100- 10. Raising the question, which the governments must face whether freedom of speech is more important than the equal treatment of its citizens. Girard, C., 2015. Why Punish Hate Speech? Esprit, (10), pp.11. Waldron stated that the idea of protecting all vulnerable groups from the hate speech is to ultimately protect them from being offended and offending to protect their dignity as a group. Keck M.T, 2016 Hate Speech and Double Standards, University of Wisconsin Press Constitutional studies, volume 1, issue 1 pg. 101. Which is further illustrated in the article regarding the double stranded of the Muslim and LGBQT communities that still occurs today. Taras, R., 2012. Xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe. Edinburgh University Press. Pg. 12. Islamophobic speech, has been a vast issue that raises anger for the Islamic community, specifically where caricatures that were offensive of the prophet Muhammed were drawn and “there was legislative changes like the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act in Britain that was made, but there was not success to
Therefore, a way to deal with this issue is to figure out ways to improve the already existing laws that are put in place. Keck clearly discusses the current hate speech laws that differ across the nations of Europe showing that many “European legislatures repeatedly ban the public expression of some forms of hateful speech, but only incite to violence against members of vulnerable groups or ban group based defamation.” Keck M.T, 2016 Hate Speech and Double Standards, University of Wisconsin Press Constitutional studies, volume 1, issue 1 pg. 96- 97 Avoiding everything that is entailed in the definition of what hate crime is and picking and choosing what is important to protect for individuals, causing the European hate speech laws to vary as wells as not consistently prosecuting the violator in some cases, although they share “common core norms”. Therefore, I strongly agree with Keck, when saying that the already existing laws should be expanded to outline all the aspects of hateful speech and double standards, meaning that nations and leaders of Europe should come together to a collective agreement regarding what should be outlined in the laws. Although I do understand that, that would be an effective way to deal with the issue in an ideal world, but would not be so easy as each leader of a nation would have different views and …show more content…
The current hate speech laws across the European states should be amended, since the law does not focus on all groups that are vulnerable to hate speech, causing minority groups to be unprotected by the law. Keck M.T, 2016 Hate Speech and Double Standards, University of Wisconsin Press Constitutional studies, volume 1, issue 1 pg. 100- 10. Raising the question, which the governments must face whether freedom of speech is more important than the equal treatment of its citizens. Girard, C., 2015. Why Punish Hate Speech? Esprit, (10), pp.11. Waldron stated that the idea of protecting all vulnerable groups from the hate speech is to ultimately protect them from being offended and offending to protect their dignity as a group. Keck M.T, 2016 Hate Speech and Double Standards, University of Wisconsin Press Constitutional studies, volume 1, issue 1 pg. 101. Which is further illustrated in the article regarding the double stranded of the Muslim and LGBQT communities that still occurs today. Taras, R., 2012. Xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe. Edinburgh University Press. Pg. 12. Islamophobic speech, has been a vast issue that raises anger for the Islamic community, specifically where caricatures that were offensive of the prophet Muhammed were drawn and “there was legislative changes like the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act in Britain that was made, but there was not success to