Proceedings of the 9th International Academic Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences
Year: 2024
DOI:
[PDF]
Hate Speech: Militant Democracy at Crossroads
Efstathios-Rafail Pasgianos, LL.M. (Cantab.)
ABSTRACT:
Conventional wisdom suggests that eighty years after the horrors of WWII and with democracy well established across Europe, the need for a militant democracy in the sense that Loewenstein once outlined[1] has seized to exist. Yet whereas the basic elements of a democratic rule of law in the West are grosso modo in place, it is our understanding of democracy that seems to shift, in view of postmodernist approaches to the function of institutions, social structures and personal entitlements. Especially with regards to the latter, social individualism and the augmenting lack of common space and experience, have led the notion of personal safety to swell into a everbroadening ideal, encompassing even protection from speech that is purportedly harmful. If freedom from speech for the sake of safety is indeed a novel facet – or even a prerequisite – of the liberty of one’s expression, then hate speech, the vilifying and divisive form thereof, must be outlawed for both individuals and, more importantly, political parties, in order to secure a true democratic polity that respects human rights to their fullest extent. In that case however we concede the government the power to proscribe speech as it sees fit, giving it a free hand to regulate a massive domain, according to nebulous standards. Questions emerge: Can speech be equated to a harmful act? What really is hate speech and should a government tolerate or ban it? Should, for the sake of substantive democracy, political parties be prohibited for disseminating such speech? Where should we draw the line?
Keywords: constitutional theory, democracy, human rights, hate speech, political parties