Hungarian academic and performer Peter Molnar explains the importance of Gondolatbátorság to his ‘Hate Speech’ Monologues.
Pınar Ensari and Funda Tekin explain the work of the Hrant Dink Foundation in countering hate speech in Turkey.
Paul Cliteur and Tom Herrenberg, editors of a book on The Fall and Rise of Blasphemy Law, consider the changing nature of censorship.
Expression can be dangerous, but that should not necessarily make it a crime. Jeffrey Howard evaluates the best argument for banning hate speech.
Maja Sojref and Sarah Glatte explore the growing public disillusionment with the mainstream press in Germany.
Jonathan Leader Maynard examines the difficulties in assessing and managing the role of speech in violence.
Monica Richter argues that no-platforming is more about censoring unpalatable views than protecting marginalised groups.
Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh argues that no-platforming is an expressive act that can expand the field of debate, rather than the denial of free speech.
Roger Scruton argues that self-censorship can be as much a threat to free speech as its government equivalent.
In this interview for Free Speech Debate, renowned Philosophy Professor Rae Langton speaks about the value of philosophy for our understanding of free speech and discusses aspects of her work on pornography and the silencing of women.
Leslie Green argues that Buddhist ideas about avoiding divisive, abusive and false speech can help us live together well in free societies
In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a famous ruling in a case involving a high school teacher and alleged anti-Semitism. Max Harris explains.
In a bid to synchronise hate crimes, the EU is seeking unity amongst members states against the denial of historical injustices. Is this the EU versus member states’ appreciation of intellectual freedom? Luigi Cajani explains.
Max Harris explains why journalist Andrew Bolt was found in breach of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act for articles about “fair-skinned Aboriginal people”.
Free speech scholar Eric Heinze identifies the main arguments for laws restricting hate speech and says none are valid for mature Western democracies.
Cherian George on how hate speech is gaining virulence in Asian countries such as Myanmar, and how peace-building workshops represent a positive step forward.
Katherine Bruce-Lockhart looks at the media’s role in two Kenyan elections and argues that peace and critical media coverage should not be mutually exclusive.
Marc-Antoine Dilhac recounts how he confronted anti-semitic prejudice in a French classroom, and argues that more good comes from an open debate about hate speech than from banning it.
Legal philosopher Martha Nussbaum gave the 2013 Dahrendorf Lecture, exploring how to live with religious diversity.
We regularly highlight comments that have made an impression on us. Antoon de Baets left an insightful response to Josie Appleton’s discussion of memory laws in France.
Nigel Warburton spoke with Timothy Garton Ash for Index on Censorship’s Free Speech Bites about the Free Speech Debate Project and global free speech standards.
The forthcoming trial of Kenyan broadcaster Joshua Arap Sang poses vital questions about the connections between words and violence, argues Katherine Bruce-Lockhart.
Should a world famous actress be allowed to denounce an ‘overpopulation’ by foreigners? By Michèle Finck.
At the 2013 Jaipur Festival, Ian Buruma, Reza Aslan, Ahdaf Souief and Timothy Garton Ash, in conversation with Shoma Chaudhury, talk about the relationship between religion and politics and how to deal with religious threats to free speech.
At the invitation of Index of Censorship and the Editors Guild of India, Timothy Garton Ash joins Kirsty Hughes at a panel discussion in Delhi with Shri Ajit Balakrishnan, Shri Sunil Abraham and Ramajit Singh Chima.
Aryeh Neier, human rights lawyer and president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations speaks about the future of free speech.
Jerry Timmins describes a new report on media in two post-conflict societies, and argues that countries like Britain should do more to support them.
We regularly highlight comments that have made an impression on us. Today’s comes from user Martinned responding to Brian Pellot’s discussion piece on the Innocence of Muslims controversy.
FSD’s Katie Engelhart sat in on this Frontline Club debate to discuss controversy surrounding the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims.
Join us to debate the role internet platforms like YouTube should play in setting free speech agendas in your country, your language and across the world. Online editor Brian Pellot kicks off the discussion.
The Hrant Dink Foundation has run the Media Watch on Hate Speech project since 2009 to counter racist and discriminatory discourse in Turkish press. Project coordinators Melisa Akan and Nuran Agan explain the initiative.
Manav Bhushan, an Indian member of the Free Speech Debate team, makes the case for blocking hate-filled websites in his country.
Romedia Foundation aims to disseminate an insider’s view of Romani issues, empower Romani activists and challenge stereotypes through new media.
The speed and ubiquity of mobile devices have changed the context of “hate speech” online, writes Peter Molnar.
Claus Leggewie and Horst Meier explain why memory laws are the wrong way for Europeans to remember and debate their difficult pasts.
Acclaimed Turkish author Elif Shafak discusses the limits to free speech, the cosmopolitanism of her novels and the art of coexistence.
In 2011, a South African court banned the anti-apartheid song “Shoot the Boer” after ruling it hate speech, writes Nimi Hoffmann.
In 2011, the US supreme court ruled in favour of the anti-gay church’s right to protest at military funerals, writes Casey Selwyn.
A South Korean photographer explains his ordeal in holding an exhibition in Japan that documents ageing ‘Comfort Women’, writes Lee Yoo Eun.
Free Speech Debate’s 10 draft principles benefit those in positions of privilege and power, writes Sebastian Huempfer.
Restrictions on hate speech are not a means of tackling bigotry but of rebranding often obnoxious ideas or arguments are immoral, argues writer Kenan Malik.
Killer Anders Behring Breivik’s testimony should be broadcast live to deter extremism, argues Anne Ardem, executive editor at Norwegian state broadcaster NRK.
Historian Halil Berktay discusses the denial by the Turkish state that the mass murders of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in 1915 constituted a genocide.
In the first past of this debate, research fellow Kerem Öktem argues that an individual’s understanding of free speech is shaped by their personal history and geography.
The director of civil liberties group Liberty calls for a review of all speech crime legislation in the UK.
Three human rights experts scrutinise the defamation of religion, which they argue misses the point by protecting faith but not vulnerable believes
Hate speech legislation chills freedom of expression more than it protects vulnerable minorities. Free speech lawyer Ivan Hare takes issue with Jeremy Waldron.
Susan Benesch, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, discusses hate speech and dangerous speech with Timothy Garton Ash
2001年の10月、Harry Hammondというキリスト福音主義の聖職者が「ストップ不道徳、ストップ同性愛、ストップ女性の同性愛」と書かれたプラカードを掲げました。Hammondがそれをやめるのを拒否すると、警察官は彼を逮捕しました。Timothy Garton Ashが為になるケースを論じます。
“If you don’t ever feel hate, you have a broken personality,” says Canadian lawyer and publisher Ezra Levant.
Jeremy Waldron, professor of social and political theory at Oxford University, argues the case for legislation against hate speech
A trio of human rights experts elaborate on the definition of dangerous speech and consider how hate speech is protected both in Europe and under the first amendment in the US.
The director of the Moral Courage Project says so-called ‘respect’ for Muslims is often lined with fear and “low expectations” of those practising the faith.
In 2011, Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders was cleared of charges of group defamation, incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims. Rutger Kaput looks at the case.