| Description |
In the two decades of the 21st century, we have observed unprecedented changes in our communication infrastructure, platforms, and norms. While facilitating the emergence of a vastly more interconnected society that empowers the voices of average citizens, we are also faced with the reality of a new world of speech with communities, forums, and exchanges that challenge our notions of how speech operates in society. The centralized, regulated communication platforms of the 20th century-radio, television, and print-now compete within and against social media platforms, internet forums, and niche online publications. This collision of old and new media has become a rich area of questions and research by communication and legal scholars. At the forefront of this conversation is hate speech-by no means a new phenomenon, but one that has found renewed relevance in the online communication of the 21st century. In this brave, new world of digital speech and online communication, I argue that our current moral, philosophical, and legal toolkit is woefully unprepared to confront this defining issue of our time. Through the means of case law, First Amendment theory, and critical race theory I contend that we must revisit the interpretation of the First Amendment and create a new approach for our contemporary context. I argue four premises; first, that the freedom of expression can be successfully balanced against the rights of marginalized groups to live free of hate speech and the harms that come with it. Second, international law and the values that bind us to global society compels us to make such a change. Third, the technology and platforms of the 21st century require a new framing of our understanding of speech. Fourth, the judicial system should be the place for the changing of the current law-empowered as it is to interpret and define our laws to suit changing social and political circumstances. Proving these premises, I seek to answer the question-What do we get from pretending the dangers are not real? In line with the pandemic harms of hate speech, the danger is not only a weakened, fragmented society but a government without a justifiable claim on political legitimacy or true civic representation. |
