LAW AND CULTURE
The Free Speech Dilemma
Free Speech, Hate Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance
Free speech is often seen as a fundamental cornerstone of any liberal democracy. Emmanuel Kant maintained that free speech is not only a mechanism for the enlightened evolution of ideas, but also an essential means by which the populace may register dissent against the government, thus ensuring the legitimacy of a state’s authority.
Ronald Dworkin was also a staunch proponent of the idea that the freedom to speak without censor, even to the point where that speech could be considered hateful or offensive, is vital to the existence of any liberal democracy.
Dworkin drew a distinction between so-called hate speech and hate crime (such as violence or discrimination based on prejudice against a victim’s race, sexual orientation or religion, for example). He believed that in order to legitimately legislate against hate crime society must allow hate speech. To censor the free expression of any views at all, however hateful, is to legislate without allowing everyone’s views to be heard, and this, he argues, is anti-democratic.
The right to free speech, which in its wider sense includes not just the written and spoken word, but also the use of images, cartoons, movies, plays, and even the…
