A Comparative Perspective on the First Amendment: Free Speech, Militant Democracy, and the Primacy of Dignity as a Preferred Constitutional Value in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE FIRSTAMENDMENTAND GERMANYthe adoption and enforcement of hate speech laws in Western Europe and elsewhere, he suggests that "it is evidently possible to regulate the more vicious forms of race-hate speech, while remaining committed to free expression." '2 Other proponents of hate speech regulation also tend to characterize such regimes in foreign nations as largely successful.Professor Kathleen Mahoney observes that "[i]f one looks to the international community, there is a recognition that racist hate propaganda is integral to the perpetuation of racism, that it is illegitimate speech and is properly subject to control under law." 3 In a similar vein, Professor Michel Rosenfeld reports that "[i]n the Western European democracies, the speech of racists, Communists, Fascists, and Nazis has been successfully outlawed."Essentially, proponents of hate speech regulations claim that a limited proscription against certain targeted racial insults can exist in a regime that is otherwise quite tolerant of free speech."Indeed, the experiences of Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, and the Netherlands--countries whose commitment to freedom of inquiry arguably is comparable to that of the United States-imply that limited regulation of hate speech does not invariably cause deterioration of the respect accorded free speech." 5Rather than a gross abridgement of a fundamental right, "[c]itizens seem to regard anti-hate-speech laws as limited exceptions comparable to libel or official-secret rules necessary to preserve a decent society.' Perhaps it might be possible to operationalize a regime of hate speech laws in a fashion that does not trample core speech rights.But, before endorsing any particular regulatory scheme, one should take some care to examine how it operates and the larger legal context of which it is a part.At least in the case of Germany, it is very difficult to claim plausibly that "limited regulation of hate speech does not invariably cause deterioration of the respect accorded free speech." ' 7 2.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".