Empirical Shortcomings with First Amendment Jurisprudence: A Historical Perspective on the Power of Hate Speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article evaluates the extent to which hate speech is a catalyst for discrimination, persecution, and other forms of oppression. Furthermore, it analyzes whether hate speech facilitates persecution of insular minorities. If hate speech breeds prejudice and limits an identifiable out group's ability to participate in the democratic process, then they pose a true threat and are not protected by the First Amendment. At issue are not abstract sayings, but expressions calculated to indoctrinate listeners with a set of beliefs justifying and advocating the use of force and persecution against out groups. Restrictions should be enacted against hate speech that is intended to elicit persecution or oppression when such results are significantly probable. This article suggests that hate speech is not only dangerous when it poses an immediate threat of harm, but also when it is systematically developed and thereby becomes part of culturally acceptable dialogs. Part II of this article summarizes Supreme Court precedents dealing with hate speech. Part III evaluates what role anti-Semitic speech played in Germany in creating circumstances that made the Holocaust possible. Part III then analyzes whether racist speech contributed to the development of Black slavery and the ruthless destruction of many Native American tribes in the United States. Part III also contains a brief overview of the more prevalent current racist vitriol and its consequences. Part IV criticizes the Supreme Court's hate speech doctrine because it is not based on empirical evidence, but rather on a relativistic theory of law that potentially poses a threat to democracy. Part IV also considers legislation enacted by some Western democracies, like Germany and Canada, prohibiting certain forms of hate propaganda. Part IV then evaluates democratic institutions and the danger that hate speech poses to them. Finally, Part IV discusses policy considerations lawmakers should address in formulating statutes prohibiting the promulgation of speech aimed at instigating racial and ethnic violence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".