<p>This paper discusses the wrongful imprisonment of the Guildford Four, and the reasons why this miscarriage of justice occurred. Contrary to popular opinion that the injustice arose due to police malpractice, this paper will conclude that the blame lies primarily with the judiciary for failing to reverse the 1975 decision even in the face of what seemed to be insurmountable contradictory evidence. This paper analyses the role each branch of government played, as well as discussing the role of public perceptions and societal fears of the time.</p>
<p>This paper assesses the United States position on the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment and questions whether, in light of the harm hate speech causes and the inconsistencies with free speech rationales, the position is justified. The most recent Supreme Court pronouncement on the issue is Snyder v Phelps which this paper utilizes as an exemplar of the state’s aversion to regulating speech on the basis of content. The ultimate thesis of this paper is that while hate speech is a complex issue, especially given the United States constitutional climate, complete lack of regulation leaves an appreciable harm without a remedy. The approach in the United States can no longer be justified in reliance on oft cited free speech rationales. Though international experiences in hate speech regulation have not been without their difficulties, it serves to illustrate the point that regulating some forms of speech on the basis of content does not necessarily result in the “chilling effect” that heavily concerns First Amendment scholars.</p>
<p>This paper discusses the wrongful imprisonment of the Guildford Four, and the reasons why this miscarriage of justice occurred. Contrary to popular opinion that the injustice arose due to police malpractice, this paper will conclude that the blame lies primarily with the judiciary for failing to reverse the 1975 decision even in the face of what seemed to be insurmountable contradictory evidence. This paper analyses the role each branch of government played, as well as discussing the role of public perceptions and societal fears of the time.</p>
<p>This paper assesses the United States position on the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment and questions whether, in light of the harm hate speech causes and the inconsistencies with free speech rationales, the position is justified. The most recent Supreme Court pronouncement on the issue is Snyder v Phelps which this paper utilizes as an exemplar of the state’s aversion to regulating speech on the basis of content. The ultimate thesis of this paper is that while hate speech is a complex issue, especially given the United States constitutional climate, complete lack of regulation leaves an appreciable harm without a remedy. The approach in the United States can no longer be justified in reliance on oft cited free speech rationales. Though international experiences in hate speech regulation have not been without their difficulties, it serves to illustrate the point that regulating some forms of speech on the basis of content does not necessarily result in the “chilling effect” that heavily concerns First Amendment scholars.</p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.