Jeffrey Howard is on the faculty of the School of Public Policy at University College London. His view is that speech is like anything else that can cause harm to others, so legal prohibitions on hate speech can be justified. Most of the world's liberal democracies believe that hate speech is not protected by the right to freedom of expression. The United States differs in believing that hate Speech is protected by the moral right to free speech as expressed in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
What if you could sue someone for calling you a racial slur? In the 90s, one country that always looked very similar to America decided to allow it, rolling back the rights to free speech in the interest of protecting victims of hate speech. Is the result a slippery slope to government tyranny, or a more harmonious society? The moral right to hate speech does not run as deep in the U.S. as most people believe. Only in the last 80 years of litigation and activism has it become protected. On this episode, we look at the story of a racial slur that led to a precedent, we take a whirlwind tour of landmark First Amendment cases, and two philosophers argue about whether morality is on the side of U.S. law. It might not be.
Guest voices include Sonny Sidhu, Tim Soutphommasane, philosopher Jeffrey Howard, and philosopher Seana Shiffrin.
This episode is brought to you by Warby Parker. Try their home try-on program for free today at warbyparker.com/nation.
This episode of brought you by Care/Of. For 50% your first month of personalized vitamins, go to TakeCareOf.com and enter promo code Slate50.
Join Slate Plus to get ad-free and bonus content for this and every other Slate podcast. Go to slate.com/hiphiplus
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices