Communication Law across Cultures Paper: the U.S.A. vs. Italy
Student Name
Institution affiliation
Course Code and Course Name
Professor Name
Date
Communication Law across Cultures Paper: the U.S.A. vs. Italy
Hate speech is defined as a written, spoken, or visual discrimination, harassment, threat, or violence against a person or a group depending on the gender, disability, sexual orientation, race, and ethnic origin. Hate speech involves statements which promote malicious stereotype and speech that incites hatred and violence. Also, hate speech includes the nonverbal expression, conduct, gestures, and symbols, which causes psychological harm to the victims and sometimes physical damage when a group is incited to cause violence against particular persons.
The history of hate speech in both the United States (U.S.) and Italy describes the origin of the issues. Difference relevant doctrines are used to make a decision when examining whether the offense is criminal or civil. Besides, significant conflict is addressed by the legislation of both countries. Ultimately, the current status of hate speech in both nation depiction is examined to whether there are progress or regression in counteracting hate speech.
The History of Hate Speech in the United States
The history of hate speech issues in the United States arose in the 1920s. In 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union was formed to defend the freedom of speech. During the next decade until 1930, the social and political controversies debates on whether to restrict the parentsracial and religious expression in the U.S. were addressed. In 1931, the United States Supreme Court issued two crucial decision affirming the first amendment act to protect the freedom of speech and press (Walker, 2011). The United States incorporated the first amendment act to the fourteenth amendment, which extended the protection of freedom of expression and media to the state level. The two decision amendment by the Supreme Court opened an era in the American Law to defend the individual right of speech and restrict hate speech. Two years later after Nazis came in power in Germany the fascist group migrated to United States. The group directed hate speech to the domestic American, which prompted the U.S. legislative government to restrict the speech used by the group as well as anti-Semitic, paramilitary, and anti-democratic groups. In the same context, the Nazi group create intense hate speech in the U.S. to an extent, the speech became a national debate.
In 1940, the national issues of hate speech led to the formation of national policy enhanced by the Supreme Court to form a coherent body of first amendment law to protect various forms of expression and political parties in the United States (Walker, 2011). The protection of hate speech dominated in the 1940s and mid-1970s with the Supreme Court under the chief JusticeJustice Earl Warren. The chief JusticeJustice is predominately extending the first amendment protection of speech and expression to various organization. After World War II, civil rights groups and leaders arise with provocative and offensive hate speech to their audience intending to succeed on their interests claiming to protect the constitutional right of expression; this led to a massive demonstration with rampant cases of hate speech.
In the 1980s, the first amendment restricted the speech code used in the college’s campus in the U.S. college speech code was deemed as by the civil libertarian as a severe threat to the freedom of expression due to intense hate speech (Walker, 2011). Later in 1990, the college and university speech codes were declared unconstitutional by the first amendment ground and defeated in the federal courts of Michigan and Wisconsin. From the 1990s, through radical changes of multicultural movement, there has been a clear understanding of hate speech, which has become more elastic in the U.S. population. Recently, the national Hispanic media coalition report has outlined the essential areas which define hate speech, which includes the false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language, and dehumanizing metaphors.
The History of Hate Speech in Italy
The history of hate speech in Italy remains a core concern over the last two decades. The country has experienced a significant rise in the number of hate crimes, incitements, and hatred against a different individual based on their ethnic, sexual ground, religious or racial bias. The main reason there is an increase in hate speech in Italy is due to the long-standing economic crisis incorporated by the increase in immigrants and refugees. Besides the failure of the refugees and immigrants to interrelate with the local communities. Xenophobic movements and Right-wing parties further created hostility towards the ethnic and religious groups to gain political advantages.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the immigrants and refugees were the targets of hate speech due to their low numbers. The number of refugees increased, but the government fails to protect and restrict hate speech channeled towards the two groups in Italy. On the other hand, Italian media play a crucial in experiencing the minority group as tourists and fundamentalists. The action increased the spread of hate in social media, online media, journals, and articles. Most of the political parties in Italy used the inflammatory speech-language depicting their ethnic, sexual orientation, and physical to humiliate their political oppositions.
In recent years, the majority of hate speech has occurred in media platforms such as social network platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Cyberbullying has become strict attention that has attracted the Italian legislators, with most of the information synthesis being prejudice. In May 2016, Laura Boldrini, President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Parliament, launched a Special Parliamentary Committee to handle issues about the Intolerance, Xenophobia, Racism, and Hate to gather data.
Relevant Doctrines Guiding Decision about Hate Speech
In the United States, there is an applicable doctrine guiding the decision to hate speech. The first amendment freedom of speech, R.A.V. and St Paul, Fifth Amendment, and the current Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the doctrine guiding the U.S. government in decision Hate Speech. St Paul ordinance of 1990 stated that whichever individual uses a symbol, doctrine, appellation, characterization, burning cross, and Nazi symbol which arose resentment in others in terms of race, color, creed, religion, or gender commits a disorderly conduct and shall be charged with hate speech. This saw the supreme charge R.A.V. with the misdemeanor after burning the cross violating the court’s rule of free speech jurisprudence.
The supreme through the first amendment freedom of speech recognizes that the government has to constitutionally respect the freedom of the right of the declaration of its citizens. The decision by the court regulates the over broadly, too vague, or discriminatory expressions towards the content or the viewpoint of the citizens. The current fourteenth amendment equal protection limits the ideal area of hate speech by ensuring it promotes the tools which provide equality in expression in the society. The current Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence states that the equality argument requires acknowledging the rights of victims in the hands of the speakers and protecting their worth. Therefore, the speaker and listen, in this case, have the validity in character, and there should be no disparity in the treatment of the speaker right over the listener’s right of speech.
Is Hate Speech Considered a Civil or Criminal Offense?
In the United States, hate speech enjoys massive protection by the constitution. Hate speech thrives under the first amendment. In the current, early amendment jurisprudence hate speech is charged if it results in imminent incitements to criminal activity, or it results in violence in the target group or individuals. In the United States, Hate speech is considered a civil offense due to the view by the government that criminalizing hate speech will demean the freedom of speech. Moreover, U.S. courts have repeatedly objected to laws that criminalized hate speech since they are perceived as violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. In this regard, there are numerous categories of speech like that speech which incite imminent violence to group or people that are not protected by the First Amendment. They are viewed as correct constitutionally as they don’t violate the rights of individual freedom of speech.
In Italy, hate speech is considered a criminal offense chargeable by the court. The victims of hate speech in Italy can initiate proceeding with the criminal trial to claim compensation, rights for the damage, or pursue alternative civil defamation. In the case of defamation of the religious or profane, the administrative monetary impose charges to the group or individual who conducted the hate speech. Besides, there are two crucial bodies; National Office against Racial Discrimination UNAR and Observatory for Security against Discrimination (OSCAD) which monitors complaints, assist, promote research, and campaign against Hate speech in Italy.
Major Problem or Conflict that Legislation Has Sought Address
In the United States, hate speech is not regulated due to the massive support it receives in the First Amendment of the constitution. The Supreme has consistently ruled that hate speech is a legally protected form of free speech. This has resulted in different debates with some proposed legislation to address hate speech in the U.S., failing to survive successfully. For instance, in 1968, the Ku Klux Klan member’s hateful speech towards the Africa American society was protected, and no charge was imposed on the group.
In Italy, hate speech is well addressed with different legislation put in place to protect the victims. The advocacy of discriminatory against hatred problems a direct and public incitement to a crime against humanity and cases of genocide in articles 19 and 20 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. The Italian government has addressed all the other speech applied to in the cases of hate speech. Also, discuss the case of hate speech that has failed to meet the international freedom of express threshold. Moreover, the government has sought to address the comprehensive plan that promotes a culture of tolerance, equality, mutual respect, and diversity among society and school. The multi-stakeholder strategy being developed in Italy to counter all forms of hate speech. The Relevant stakeholders, including state institution, civil society, print media, and internal platforms, are cooperating to ensure speech meet the international standards.
Current Status of Hate Speech in the U.S. and Italy
Currently, in the United States, various groups, such as the white nationalist, began to protest for the removal of the statue of confederate. This protects resulted in many violence and debate over the United States. Nonetheless, with the emergence of free speech restriction, the country has developed in terms of regulating hate speech case. The limit states that any speech that incites, the language that supports terrorism, defamation of characters, speech against intellectual property, and threat are chargeable in the court.
In Italy, the current status of controlling hate speech has received support from the government and relevant stakeholders. In recent years the majority of hate speech in Italy appeared in online platforms such as Facebook with a rise in the instance of bias-motivated cyberbullying, especially against the refugees and immigrants. In May 2016, Laura Boldrini launched a select parliamentary committee to address xenophobia, racism, hate speech, and intolerance case against the citizen.
Reference
Bleich, E. (2011). The rise of hate speech and hate crime laws in liberal democracies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(6), 917-934.
Levmore, S., & Nussbaum, M. C. (Eds.). (2010). The offensive Internet: Speech, privacy, and reputation. Harvard University Press.
O’Neil, R. M. (2012). Hate speech, fighting words, and beyond-why American law is unique. Alb. L. Rev., 76, 467.
Kiska, R. (2012). Hate speech: a comparison between the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. Regent U.L. Rev., 25, 107.
Walker, S. (2011). Hate speech: The history of an American controversy. U of Nebraska Press.