AMERİKA BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİ YÜKSEK MAHKEMESİ İÇTİHATLARINDA NEFRET SÖYLEMİ

Abstract

Today many western democracies limit freedom of expression where minorities of varying natures targeted by hatred. European Court of Human Rights sets a rather strict standard in which hate speech may not even qualify for a proportionality analysis under Article 17. Difference between the USA and rest of the world diminishes effectiveness of legal framework combating the hate speech. Most of the expression that would require legal sanctions in many western democracies are shielded by the freedom of expression in the USA. This outliner position of the US Supreme Court case law calls for an analysis. The most prominent and repeating argument against limitation of hate speech stems from the principle that government cannot remove certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace of ideas. Although the Supreme Court accepts that a few groups of well defined speech categories enjoy lesser protection, hate speech does not belong to any of them. According to the Supreme Court a clear and present danger shall be evident for speech to be restricted and the limitation must not be vague or over reaching. This paper analyzes milestone decisions of the Supreme Court regarding hate speech.

Keywords

• freedom of expression
• hate speech
• federal supreme court of united states of america
• case law