Hate speech in the British press: a theoretical and practical assessment of the case for broader regulation
This thesis is concerned with the justifiability of regulating hate speech disseminated by the British press. It explains why the narrow scope of current regulation is at odds with prominent theories of press freedom, focusing on the following major accounts. Firstly, a libertarian theory which sugg...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Book |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Edinburgh
2022
|
| In: | Year: 2022 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 187320227X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231212163630.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231212s2022 xxk|||||om 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.7488/era/3181 |2 doi | |
| 024 | 7 | |a 1842/40413 |2 hdl | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)187320227X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP187320227X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 044 | |c XA-GB | ||
| 084 | |a 2,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Mude, Hashim Ibrahim Hussein |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Hate speech in the British press: a theoretical and practical assessment of the case for broader regulation |c Hashim Ibrahim Hussein Mude |
| 264 | 1 | |a Edinburgh |c 2022 | |
| 300 | |a 1 Online-Ressource (288 Seiten) | ||
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 0 | |a Law thesis and dissertation collection | |
| 500 | |a Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 260-285 | ||
| 502 | |b Dissertation |c University of Edinburgh |d 2022 | ||
| 520 | |a This thesis is concerned with the justifiability of regulating hate speech disseminated by the British press. It explains why the narrow scope of current regulation is at odds with prominent theories of press freedom, focusing on the following major accounts. Firstly, a libertarian theory which suggests the press ought to be subject to equivalent legal treatment to the public. Secondly, social responsibility theories which extend protection and special privileges to the press only when they fulfill certain democratic functions. It argues that these theories support broader regulation of hate speech than those which currently apply to the British press. Finally, it considers how such broader regulation can be implemented in a manner which preserves press freedom. Chapter 1 explains the nature of hate speech in the British press identifying it as a form of covert hate speech that stereotypes and stigmatises racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. It explores why such content is not proscribed under the current legal regime (which only bans overt hate speech) and how it is caught by the broader restrictions applicable to the broadcast media. Finally, it explains that this gap is pertinent because hate speech in the media is mostly of the covert kind which escapes regulation. Chapter 2 sets out the methodology used to explore the appropriate scope of hate speech restrictions on the press. It explains the coverage/protection distinction and the balancing framework that will be used to reconcile the press’s rights to publish with the need to prevent harm to others. It then explains circumstances under which such a balancing approach would support regulating covert hate speech under both the libertarian and social responsibility theories of press freedom. Chapter 3 evaluates the rationales for the broader regulation of broadcasting, testing their coherency and whether they support the differential treatment of hate speech between broadcasting and the press. In chapters 4 and 5, it is argued that regulation of covert hate speech by the press can be justified under the libertarian theory if it is shown to cause the same harms as overt hate speech. The chapters then set out the empirical evidence in the social science literature demonstrating a link between overt hate speech and various direct and indirect harms. Finally, it considers whether there is evidence of similar quality linking covert hate speech by the press and these harms. Chapter 6 examines theories of constituted harm built on J.L. Austin’s theory of speech acts. It explains the authority problem that prevents ordinary hate speakers from successfully ranking and subordinating their targets. It then argues that the press does not suffer from the same deficits in authority and considers the implications of this on the case for broader regulation. Chapters 7 and 8 set out the conditions under which broader regulation of press hate speech would be supported by social responsibility theories. It is argued that such regulation would be justified if the press has more limited rights than the public to engage in hate speech and if such restrictions do not hinder their ability to perform their institutional functions. It is then contended that the strongest rationales for protecting hate speech in free speech theory are non-instrumentalist speaker-based arguments that either do not - or only marginally apply to - the press. Finally, it is argued that such regulation can be designed in ways that allow the press to perform their roles as public watchdogs, as a source of information and ideas on matters of public concern, and as a platform for people to exchange views. Chapter 9 considers what regulation that is both effective against covert hate speech and which preserves press freedom would look like. This includes a consideration of whom it should apply, what form it ought to take, and how it would fit in the current regulatory framework. This thesis, therefore, seeks to answer four main research questions : 1.What kind of hate speech does the press publish, and should it be restricted? 2.Does this hate speech cause harm, and if so, how? 3.What is the relationship between freedom of expression and press freedom, and how can these principles be reconciled with restrictions on covert hate speech? 4.What form should effective press-specific hate speech regulation take, who should it apply to, and where would it fit in the current regulatory framework? | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Hate Speech | |
| 650 | 4 | |a press freedom | |
| 650 | 4 | |a freedom of expression | |
| 650 | 4 | |a media regulation | |
| 655 | 7 | |a Hochschulschrift |0 (DE-588)4113937-9 |0 (DE-627)105825778 |0 (DE-576)209480580 |2 gnd-content | |
| 710 | 2 | |a The University of Edinburgh |e Grad-verleihende Institution |0 (DE-588)40296-5 |0 (DE-627)100922503 |0 (DE-576)190370653 |4 dgg | |
| 751 | |a Edinburgh |0 (DE-588)4013557-3 |0 (DE-627)106343009 |0 (DE-576)208904360 |4 uvp | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://hdl.handle.net/1842/40413 |x Resolving-System |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.7488/era/3181 |x Resolving-System |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 951 | |a BO | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4433216836 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 187320227X | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20231212163637 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 231212||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| 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 | ||
| OAS | |a 1 | ||
| ORI | |a WA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw | ||