Judicial Epistemology of Free Speech Through Ancient Lenses

Article

Abstract

The article is the author’s endeavor to reconstruct the semiotic conflict in the transatlantic legal appraisal of hate speech (between the USA and Europe) through Ancient Greek concepts of παρρησία (parrhēsia) and ισηγορία (isēgoria). The US Supreme Court case law on the First Amendment to American Constitution is, therefore, counter-balanced vis-à-vis la jurisprudence de Strasbourg on Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The author suggests that an adequate comprehension of the contemporary constitutional concepts of the right to free speech in Western democracies is deceptive without a thorough analysis of its genealogy in the Ancient rhetorical cradle.

Keywords

Freedom of expression Hate speech U.S. Supreme Court European Court of Human Rights Parrhēsia Isēgoria 

References

  1. 1.
    Case Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Case Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Case Whitney v. California, 247 U.S. 357 (1927).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Case Collin v. Smith, 439 U.S. 916 (1978).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Case R.A.V. v. City St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    In re Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W. 2d 507, 510 (Minn. 1991).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barendt, Eric. 2005. Freedom of speech, 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Case Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weaver, Russell L., et al. 2002. The first amendment: Cases, problems and materials. Amsterdam: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Case Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v. Netherlands, App. Nos. 8348/78 and 8406/78 (1979), EHRR 260.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Case Kühnen v. Federal Republic of Germany, Application No.12194/86 (1988).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Case Jersild v. Denmark, 19 EHRR 1 (1995).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kiikeri, Markku. 2001. Comparative legal reasoning and European law. Dodrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Case Lehideux & Isorni v. France, 30 EHRR 365 (2000).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Case Chauvy and others v. France, No. 64915/01 (2004).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Case Wable v. Austria, No. 24773/94 (2000).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Case Feldek v. Slovakia, No. 29032/95 (2001), Reports 2001-VIII.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Case Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austira, No. 28525/95 (2002), Reports 2002-I.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Case Soulas and others v. France, No. 15948/03 (2008).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Case Leroy v. France, No. 36109/03 (2008).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Case Balsytė-Lideikienė v. Lithuania, No. 72596/01 (2008).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Case Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baez, Benjamin. 2002. Affirmative action, hate speech, and tenure, narratives about race, law, and the academy. New York & London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mill, John Stuart. 1956. In On liberty, ed. Currin V. Shields, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. (originally published in 1859).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Case Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foucault, Michel. 2001. In Fearless speech, ed. Pearson, Joseph. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e) (distributed by MIT Press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Colclough, David. 2005. Freedom of speech in early Stuart England. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsai, Robert L. 2008. Eloquence and reason: Creating a first amendment culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka. 2005. The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerp\Oxford\New York: Itersentia.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bakircioglu, Onder. 2007. The application of the margin of appreciation doctrine in freedom of expression and public morality cases. German Law Journal 08(7): 711–733.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moon, Richard. 2000. The constitutional protection of freedom of expression. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    LICRA et UEJF vs Yahoo! Inc and Yahoo France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 22/5/2000.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Case Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA et UEJF, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No.01-17424 [2006].Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lapres, Daniel. 2005. Affaire Yahoo! (I et II) et Al. Manar : l’approche universaliste confirmée deux fois//Juristcom.net, http://www.iuriscom.net.
  36. 36.
    Fisher, William, Benkler, Yochai, Brackley, Rebecca, Ma, Sarah. 2006. Freedom of Expression on the Internet//http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/mexico_2006_module_4_freedom.
  37. 37.
    Bix, Brian H. 2004. A dictionary of legal theory. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Heinze, Eric. 2006. Viewpoint absolutism and hate speech. Modern Law Review 69: 543–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilson, William Julius, Taub, Richard T. 2006. There goes the neighbourhood: Racial, ethnic, and class tensions in four Chicago neighbourhoods and their meaning for America, Vintage.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Case Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Case Arslan v. Turkey, No. 23462/94 (1999).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Case Başkaya & Okçuoğlu v. Turkey, Nos.23536/94 & 24408/94 (1999).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Case Gerger v. Turkey, No.24919/94 (1999).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Case Ceylan v. Turkey, No. 23556/94 (1999).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Case Erdoğdu and Ince v. Turkey, No. 25723/94 (1999).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Case Gökçeli v. Turkey, Nos. 27215/95 & 36194/97 (2003).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Case Gümüs and others v. Turkey, 40303/98 (2005).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rosenfeld, Michel. 2003. Hate speech in constitutional jurisprudence: A comparative analysis. Cardozo Law Review 24(4):1523–1568.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shauer, Frederick. 1982. Free speech: A philosophical enquiry. Cambridge, New York: CUP.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Goldman, Alvin, and James Cox. 1996. Speech, truth, and the free market of ideas. Legal Theory 2: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Siebert, Frederick Seaton. 1952. Freedom of the press in England, 1476–1776: The rise ad decline of government control. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hamburger, Philip. 1985. The development of the law of seditious libel and the control of the press. Stanford Law Review 37: 661–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Levy, Leonard. 1985. Emergence of a free press. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Eldridge, Larry. 1993. A distant heritage: The growth of free speech in early America. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Whitman, James Q. 2003. On Nazi ‘Honour’ and the New European ‘Dignity’. In Darker legacies of law in Europe: The shadow of national socialism and fascism over Europe and its legal traditions, ed. Christian Joerges, and Navraj Singh Ghaleigh. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hennete-Vauchez, Stéphanie. 2008. A human dignity? The contemporary principle of human dignity as a mere reappraisal of an ancient legal concept, EUI Working Paper, 18.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Simonin, Anne. 2008. Le déshonneur dans la République, une histoire de l’indignité, 1791–1958. Paris: Grasset.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Foucault, Michel. 2001. L’Hermeneutique du sujet : Cours au Collège de France (1981–1982). Seuil: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schultz, Ferdinand. 1866. Demosthenes und die Redefreiheit im athenischen Staat. Berlin: C.G. Lüderitźsche verlagsbuchhandlung-A.Charisius.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1971. La libertà di parola nel mondo antico. RSI 83: 499–524.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Spina, Luigi. 1986. Il cittadino alla tribuna. Diritto e libertà di parola nell’Atene democratica. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Saxonhouse, Arlene W. 2006. Free speech and democracy in ancient Athens. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Carter, D. M. 2004. Citizen attribute, negative right: A conceptual difference between ancient and modern ideas of freedom of speech. In eds. Sluiter, Ineke, Rosen, Ralph M. Free Speech in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill N.V.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    McInerney, Jeremy. 2004. Nereids, colonies and the origins of isegoria. In eds. Sluiter, Ineke, Rosen, Ralph M., Free Speech in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill N.V.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Scarpat, Giuseppe. 1964. Parrhesia. Storia del termine e delle sue traduzione in latino. Brescia: Paideia.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Heinze, Eric. 2009. Wild-west cowboys versus cheese-eating surrender monkeys: Some problems in comparative approaches to hate speech. In Extreme speech and democracy, ed. Ivan Hare, and James Weinstein. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cavalla, Francesco. 1996. La verità dimenticata. Attualità dei presocratici dopo la secolarizzazione. Padova: CEDAM.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    De Cristofaro, Ernesto. 2008. Il senso strorico della verità. Un percorso attraverso Foucault. Genova: Il Melangolo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law DepartmentEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.University of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations