An Experimental Study on Public Support for Hate Speech Regulations

• In Event: Evolving Legal Norms Regarding Hate Speech in Japan

Abstract

In his already classic discussion, Jeremy Waldron (2012) distinguished the two consequences of hate speech, “causing offense” and “undermining dignity,” and posited that the latter, but not the former, should constitute the ground for justifying regulations against such speech. Though many criticisms have since been raised over the substance of Waldron’s argument (e.g., McConnell 2012; Leiter 2012; Simpson 2013; Heinz 2013; Weinstein, 2017), the distinction he made between offense and indignity has never been subject to systematic scrutiny, either conceptual or empirical. The absence is surprising because his dignity-based justification most characteristically and in its entirety hinges upon this distinction.
Our paper offers the first systematic empirical test on this subject through a large-scale, on-line survey experiment among ordinary Japanese citizens. Our findings confirm that, even after controlling for varying contexts and potential confounding factors, the citizens’ concerns about the dignity of hate-speech victims yield their support for regulation more strongly and more consistently than their concerns over whether the victims are offended or not. We further show, through cross-validation technique (e.g. Hastie, et al., 2009), that our results are robust. We conclude our paper by drawing normative implications of our findings and endorsing Waldron’s argument from behavioral standpoints.

Authors

• Masaru Kohno, Waseda University

• Hae Kim, Chiba University

• Kentaro Hirose, Waseda University