-
![]()
-
![]()
| | Read the PaSsage and answer the questions below.
In the summer of 1990, a group of teenagers in the city of St Paul, Minnesota, burned a cross in front of the house of an African-American
family. The teenagers were arrested and charged with violating a St. Paul law called the “Bias-motivated Crime Ordinance.” The law made
which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or
ツ
it iegal to place “on public or private property a symbol .…
resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” The teenagers challenged the legal basis of their arrest。 and in 1992、
the US Supreme Court declared the St. Paul aw an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. A European court would almost certainly
have decided the case differently. Domestic national courts in Europe, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, are far more likely than
their American counterparts to | 16 | “extreme speech"- speech that offends personal dignity on the basis of factors such as race ethnicity。
religion and sexual orientation. HateG crime prohibitions are familiar throughout Europe - laws that would not stand a chance of being accepted
as constitutional in the United States. The differences between American and European approaches to the law raise pressing questions about the
nature and limits of expressive freedom in democratic nations. What role, if any, should the law play in democracies in policing speech?
there imits beyond which offensive or hateful speech deserves to be suppressed by state power? Do efforts to punish extreme speech produce a
healthier democracy?
② One way to determine the extent to which free speech should be guaranteed would be to take into consideration the cultural and historical
2 ン 。 に
