Hate Speech and Persecution: A Contextual Approach

Scholarly work on atrocity-speech law has focused almost exclusively on incitement to genocide. But case law has established liability for a different speech offense: persecution as a crime against humanity (CAH). The lack of scholarship regarding this crime is puzzling given a split between the Int...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gordon, Gregory S. (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2013
En:Año: 2013
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866343254
003 DE-627
005 20250325045335.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231019s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866343254 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866343254 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |8 1\p  |a Gordon, Gregory S.  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)1156610966  |0 (DE-627)101965242X  |0 (DE-576)513703225  |4 aut 
109 |a Gordon, Gregory S. 
245 1 0 |a Hate Speech and Persecution: A Contextual Approach 
264 1 |c 2013 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Scholarly work on atrocity-speech law has focused almost exclusively on incitement to genocide. But case law has established liability for a different speech offense: persecution as a crime against humanity (CAH). The lack of scholarship regarding this crime is puzzling given a split between the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the issue of whether hate speech alone can serve as an actus reus for CAH-persecution. This Article fills the gap in the literature by analyzing the split between the two tribunals and concluding that hate speech alone may be the basis for CAH-persecution charges. First, this is consistent with precedent going as far back as the Nuremberg trials. Second, it takes into account the CAH requirement that the speech be uttered as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. Third, the defendant must be aware that his speech is uttered as part of that attack. As a result, it is problematic to consider hate speech in a vacuum. Unlike incitement to genocide, an inchoate crime not necessarily involving speech and simultaneous mass violence, hate speech as persecution must be legally linked to contemporaneous violence in a context in which the marketplace of ideas is shut down and speech thus loses its democracy and self-actualization benefits. Thus, it should ordinarily satisfy the CAH-persecution actus reus requirement. Nevertheless, given the strictly verbal conduct, and possible impingements on quasi-legitimate freedom of expression, isolated or sporadic hate speech, as well as hate speech uttered as part of incipient, low-level, or geographically removed chapeau violence, may not qualify as the actus reus of CAH-persecution. The Article ultimately makes the point that context is crucial and case-by-case analysis should always be required 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/524862357.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
883 |8 1  |a cgwrk  |d 20250301  |q DE-101  |u https://d-nb.info/provenance/plan#cgwrk 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4392988988 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866343254 
LOK |0 005 20231019043726 
LOK |0 008 231019||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE123372550 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw