A Dialogue of Hate Speech
Arnold H. Loewy · Scholorship Repository - Florida State University College of Law (Florida State University) · 2008
Americans and Europeans have very different ideas of the strength of their respective free speech guarantees.In an article by Professors Russell Weaver, Nicolas Delpierre, and Laurence Boissier on the Gayssot laws of France, we encounter an account of a free speech regime that would be an anathema to most Americans.1 In this Essay, I explore the different thoughts an American lawyer and a European lawyer have to help us understand why arguments that are persuasive to lawyers of one country might not be similarly persuasive to lawyers from other countries with very different cultures.On an imaginary flight from Frankfurt, Germany, to Washington, D.C., two lawyers previously unknown to each other are seated next to each other in seats 7A and 7B in the airplane's business class section.The lawyers, Hans Schmidt of Frankfurt and John Smith of Washington, introduce themselves, and the following dialogue begins: Hans: I understand that in America you construe your constitutional free speech clause to allow anyone to say anything regardless of who might be offended.John: Well, that's basically right, although a bit overstated.We don't constitutionally protect fighting words, 2 and we do limit the time, place, and manner of speech.3 Hans: Oh, good.Then you wouldn't allow such horrible things as Holocaust denial or race-baiting hate speech.