We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
REGULATING INTIMIDATING SPEECH.
- Authors
Tsesis, Alexander
- Abstract
In 2003, the Supreme Court decided in Virginia v. Black that laws punishing intentionally intimidating cross burning were constitutional. Professor Alexander Tsesis argues that the Thirteenth Amendment grants Congress the authority to enact necessary and proper laws that, like Virginia's statute in Black, prohibit intentional public displays of symbols with a "long and pernicious history." He first discusses the effects that follow from the intimidating use of destructive messages. Professor Tsesis refutes the absolutist perspective that the First Amendment does not allow hate speech regulation, and he further argues that political speech has been exploited throughout history. Lastly, this Essay examines the ways in which the Court has interpreted section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment and argues that the Amendment should be used to permit hate speech regulation.
- Subjects
VIRGINIA; LIBEL &; slander; HATE crimes; TSESIS, Alexander; HATE speech; FREEDOM of speech; RIGHT to communicate
- Publication
Harvard Journal on Legislation, 2004, Vol 41, Issue 1, p389
- ISSN
0017-808X
- Publication type
Essay