Empathy, Ways of Knowing, and Interdependence as Mediators of Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech

Women are more intolerant of hate speech than men. This study examined relationality measures as mediators of gender differences in the perception of the harm of hate speech and the importance of freedom of speech. Participants were 107 male and 123 female college students. Questionnaires assessed the perceived harm of hate speech, the importance of freedom of speech, empathy, relational and collective interdependence, and connected and separate ways of knowing. Gender differences were found for the harm of hate speech, freedom of speech, empathy, and separate learning as a way of knowing. Women were more negative regarding the harm of hate speech and regarded freedom of speech as less important than men. Additionally, the perceived harm of hate speech was positively associated with empathy, connected knowing, and interdependence, and freedom of speech was positively associated with separate learning and negatively with empathy. Empathy mediated gender differences in the perceived harm of hate speech, and separate learning mediated gender differences in the importance of freedom of speech.     

Hate Speech,Dignity and Self-Respect

This paper engages with the recent dignity-based argument against hate speech proposed by Jeremy Waldron. It’s claimed that while Waldron makes progress by conceptualising dignity less as an inherent property and more as a civic status which hate speech undermines, his argument is nonetheless subject to the problem that there are many sources of citizens’ dignitary status besides speech. Moreover, insofar as dignity informs the grounds of individuals’ right to free speech, Waldron’s argument leaves us balancing hate speakers’ dignity against the dignity of those whom they attack. I suggest instead that a central part of the harm of hate speech is that it assaults our self-respect. The reasons to respect oneself are moral reasons which can be shared with others, and individuals have moral reasons to respect themselves for their agency, and their entitlements. Free speech is interpreted not as an individual liberty, but as a collective enterprise which serves the interests of speakers and the receivers of speech. I argue that hate speech undermines the self-respect of its targets in both the agency and entitlement dimensions, and claim, moreover, that this is a direct harm which cannot be compensated for by other sources of self-respect. I further argue that hate speakers have no basis to respect themselves qua their hate speech, as self-respect is based on moral reasons. I conclude that self-respect, unlike dignity, is sufficient to explain the harm of hate speech, even though it may not be necessary to explain its wrongness.     

When Authoritarians Confront Prejudice. Differential Effects of SDO and RWA on Support for Hate‐Speech Prohibition

Two nationwide representative studies (N = 653 adolescents; N = 1007 adults) investigated the psychological correlates of the intention to penalize public expressions of prejudice in the form of support for hate‐speech prohibition. We presented participants with preselected examples of hate speech from the Internet and other mass media and assessed their willingness to support the prohibition of public expressions of such remarks. Both studies found that social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism are positively correlated with outgroup prejudice, but they have differential effects on hate‐speech prohibition. Social dominance orientation was positively related to the acceptance of hate speech, whereas right‐wing authoritarianism was positively related to hate‐speech prohibition. In discussing this counterintuitive finding, we suggest that right‐wing authoritarians are particularly vigilant toward norm violations—and this makes them more punitive toward counternormative expressions of prejudice, such as hate speech.     

Judgments of Hate Speech: The Effects of Target Group, Publicness, and Behavioral Responses of the Target

Judgments of offensiveness and accountability of hate speech as a function of contextual factors of the speech and characteristics of the observers were examined. A sample of 212 college students and 53 community participants responded to 12 scenarios describing incidents of hate speech. The within-subject variables manipulated in the scenarios were the target of the speech (ethnic groups, women, and gays), the publicness of the speech, and the behavioral response of the target. Ethnic speech was rated more offensive than gender-or gay-targeted speech; public speech was rated more offensive and more accountable than private speech; and public speech was rated more offensive and accountable when a response occurred and private speech was rated more offensive when a response did not occur. The gender and ethnicity of the raters moderated the effects of the experimental variables, as well as showing main effects. The findings of this study suggest that responses to hate speech are complex and contextual.     

Enhancing the salience of free speech rights increases differential perceived free speech protections for criminal acts against Black versus White targets

Hate crime charges offer enhanced sentences for prejudice‐motivated acts in recognition of the injury that extends beyond the victim to other members of the targeted group. The present study builds upon and extends previous work illuminating how anti‐Black prejudice influences application of free speech protections to justify criminal acts against Black (vs. White) targets, which subsequently reduces support for hate crime charges for the act by investigating the potential effects of environmental cues that increase the salience of free speech rights. The present work tested the main and interactive effects of act target (Black vs. White), anti‐Black prejudice, and the salience of freedom of speech on perceived free speech protections for a prejudice‐motivated criminal act and the consequent influence on support for hate crime charges. Replicating previous findings, greater anti‐Black prejudice predicted more perceived free speech protections for Black‐targeted acts, which predicted less support for hate crime charges. Low‐bias participants viewed Black‐ versus White‐targeted acts as less protected by free speech rights and more deserving of hate crime charges; high‐bias participants viewed the two acts similarly. Making the right to free speech (compared to protections from search and seizure) salient amplified differential perceptions of free speech protections based on prejudice and target group, which predicted support for hate crime charges. This work holds implications for justification processes and highlights the importance of studying culture‐specific values.     

Religious Freedom,Free Speech and Equality: Conflict or Cohesion?

There have recently been a number of high profile political incidents, and legal cases, that raise questions about hate speech. At the same time, the tensions, and perceived conflicts, between religion and sexuality have become controversial topics. This paper considers the relationship between religious freedom, free speech and equality through an analysis of recent case law in Great Britain, Canada and the United States. The paper starts with a discussion of how conflicts between these values arise in areas such as hate speech and explores the differences between the European and US approach to this issue. In Council of Europe member states there is an increasing use of the criminal law to regulate hate speech. This paper argues that criminalisation of hate speech poses a distinct risk to the values of free speech and proposes alternative non-legal responses such as a greater use of cultural policy. The paper also explores a range of cases where the religion and sexual orientation conflict has arisen in areas such as the workplace. An analysis of these cases suggests that although there is no perfect resolution of this issue, it is possible to develop a set of principles that encourage a balance between the values of religious freedom, free speech and equality even in difficult situations where there is a conflict between religion and sexuality. The paper concludes with some practical recommendations for managing the tensions or conflicts between religious freedom, free speech and equality in liberal democracies.     

Woman‐Hating: On Misogyny,Sexism, and Hate Speech

Hate speech is one of the most important conceptual categories in anti‐oppression politics today; a great deal of energy and political will is devoted to identifying, characterizing, contesting, and (sometimes) penalizing hate speech. However, despite the increasing inclusion of gender identity as a socially salient trait, antipatriarchal politics has largely been absent within this body of scholarship. Figuring out how to properly situate patriarchy‐enforcing speech within the category of hate speech is therefore an important politico‐philosophical project. My aim in this article is twofold: first, I argue that sexist speech, though oppressive, is not hate speech. Second, I argue that misogynistic speech is hate speech, even when it is intradivisional (that is, when it targets only subsets of women). This is important because recognizing that the concept hate speech applies to certain forms of patriarchy‐enforcing speech is another step in clarifying what is wrong with the practice, and how bad it is in relation to other abuses. Consequently, this article provides a more nuanced account of the kinds of expressions that can and should count as instances of hate speech.     

The role of system-justification motivation, group status and system threat in directing support for hate crimes legislation

We examine factors that explain variability in attitudes toward hate crimes legislation. We find that one's posture toward the current social system directs the conditions under which characteristics of hate crimes exert the most influence. System-justification motivation is negatively related to support for hate crimes legislation (Studies 1-3). This relation is partially mediated by perceptions of harm from hate crimes. Specifically, when hate crimes target low-status groups, system-justification motivation is negatively related to perceived harm and support for hate crimes legislation. Attitudes are unaffected when high-status groups are targeted. The status of the group targeted, perceptions of hate crimes as representative of the status quo, and temporarily enhanced feelings of system threat moderate this relation (Studies 2-4).     

Free Speech and Multiculturalism In and Out of the Academy

The debate over hate speech in the United States and the accompanying changes in the political culture of the university provides an opportune case to explore the impact of changing norms of free speech on political tolerance toward unpopular groups. I offer a theory of opinion change that identifies the population groups that should be most susceptible to the new norms against hate speech that originated on college campuses around the country in the 1980s. The predictions from this theory are tested using a battery of tolerance items asked repeatedly in General Social Surveys gathered between 1976 and 2000. The analysis shows that the intellectual campaign against hate speech has significantly reduced support for the free speech rights of racists. This retreat in levels of tolerance is most evident among college students who were educated since the mid-1980s, when debates over multiculturalism and political correctness reached their peak. At the same time, levels of tolerance for nonconformist ideas and lifestyles have remained generally high among today's college students and are almost always significantly higher than the national average. The general stability in aggregate levels of tolerance both in the general population and in various demographic groups only serves to highlight the few dramatic changes that have taken place.     

Hate Speech, the Priority of Liberty, and the Temptations of Nonideal Theory

Are government restrictions on hate speech consistent with the priority of liberty? This relatively narrow policy question will serve as the starting point for a wider discussion of the use and abuse of nonideal theory in contemporary political philosophy, especially as practiced on the academic left. I begin by showing that hate speech (understood as group libel) can undermine fair equality of opportunity for historically-oppressed groups but that the priority of liberty seems to forbid its restriction. This tension between free speech and equal opportunity creates a dilemma for liberal egalitarians. Nonideal theory apparently offers an escape from this dilemma, but after examining three versions of such an escape strategy, I conclude that none is possible: liberal egalitarians are indeed forced to choose between liberty and equality in this case and others. I finish the paper by examining its implications for other policy arenas, including markets in transplantable human organs and women’s reproductive services.     

Words as Weapons—When Do They Wound? Investigations of Harmful Speech

The following investigations juxtapose jurisprudence and communication literatures to examine under what conditions racist speech is perceived as harmful. Specifically, one theory of legal liability, the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and one intergroup approach, social identity theory, guided three empirical studies investigating verbally disturbing communication targeted at Asian Americans. The studies examined how the attribution of harm was influenced by variables such as group membership, message severity, message explicitness and the medium ofpresentation. One finding in particular, an interaction between group membership and message explicitness (direct vs. indirect), emerged across the three studies. Results revealed that as “objective” evaluators of deprecating speech, out-group members attributed the direct messages of racism to be more harmful than in-group members did, but, conversely, in-group members evaluated the indirect messages of racism to be more harmful than the out-group members did. Theoretical explanations for this finding and its resulting legal implications are discussed.     

Sex differences in expectancy of examination results

Abstract.— Within a group of undergraduates it was found that men had higher expectancy than women in a psychology examination. Although importance of examination results for future career was positively related to expected results in both sex groups, women did not regard results as less important than men did, and the sex difference in expectancy could not be attributed differential value of examination for women and men. Whereas estimated importance of results for future career was positively related to importance of results for self-regard in the male group, no such relationship was found for women.     

汉语言语产生的语音加工机制

通过采用词图干扰范式的图形命名技术,系统控制启动词与目标词之间的语音关系,探讨汉语言语产生中语音加工的机制。实验一发现,目标语音在韵尾变化条件下具有显著的语音启动效应,表明汉语语音音节是在言语产生过程中生成的;实验二在启动语音与目标语音仅共有声母的情况下,发现了与实验一相同的模式、结果支持实验一的结论,即汉语语音音节是在言语产生过程中生成的,语音的加工过程是一个构建的过程而不是简单的音节提取过程。     

A model of career success: A longitudinal study of emergency physicians

Objective and subjective career success were hypothesized to mediate the relationships between sociodemographic variables, human capital indices, individual difference variables, and organizational sponsorship as inputs and a retirement decision and intentions to leave either the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) or medicine as output variables. Objective career success operationalized as the number of leadership positions held did not mediate the relationship, but income change and career satisfaction mediated the relationship between the hours worked and years employed in emergency medicine. Work centrality was significantly related to subjective career success more so for men than women and perceptions of success or self-efficacy were positively related to subjective career success for women, but not for men. The expected pattern of women indicating more difficulties with personal time and family time did not emerge; but women did indicate less perceived support from the organization, fewer EM leadership positions, less perceived control over their work situation and less organizational support than did men.     

The Social Benefits of Protecting Hate Speech and Exposing Sources of Prejudice

I argue that there are strong consequentialist grounds for thinking that hate speech should be legally protected. The protection of hate speech allows those who are hateful to make their beliefs public, thereby exposing prejudices that might otherwise be suppressed to evaluation by other members of society. This greater transparency about prejudices has two social benefits. First, it facilitates social trust by making it easier to discover who holds beliefs that should exclude them from positions of authority, responsibility, and influence. Second, it facilitates efforts to combat hatred by revealing which prejudiced members of society must be persuaded or discredited by those seeking to promote tolerance.     

Religious Hatred Laws: Protecting Groups or Belief?

This article examines the issues raised by recent legislation proscribing incitement to religious hatred. In particular, it examines how far arguments for prohibiting racist hate speech apply also to the prohibition of religious hate speech. It identifies a number of significant differences between race and religion. It also examines several questions raised by the prohibition of religious hate speech, including the meaning and scope of religious identity, why that identity should receive special protection, and whether protection should be directed to religious groups as groups or to their individual members. The central argument of the article is that the distinction between protecting religious groups from vilification and protecting their beliefs and practices from criticism—a distinction on which the British Government placed great emphasis in defending its legislation—is unsustainable. That conclusion is supported by the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in cases in which it has upheld the curtailing of freedom of expression for the sake of protecting religion.     

Alienable Speech: Ideological Variations in the Application of Free-Speech Principles

Although freedom of speech is a Constitutionally protected and widely endorsed value, political tolerance research finds that people are less willing to protect speech they dislike than speech they like ( Gibson, 2006 ). Research also suggests liberal-conservative differences in political tolerance ( Davis & Silver, 2004 ). We measured U.S. citizens' political tolerance for speech acts, while manipulating the speaker's ethnicity and the speech's ideological content. Speech criticizing Americans was protected more strongly than was speech criticizing Arabs, especially among more politically liberal respondents. Liberals also reported greater free-speech support. Respondents expressed greater political tolerance for a speaker when he was an exemplar of the criticized group, but showed equal political tolerance for speakers whose group membership (as a White or Black American) was irrelevant to the speech. Finally, implicit political identity showed convergent validity with explicit political identity in predicting speech tolerance, and implicit racial and ethnic preferences showed variable prediction of speech tolerance across the two studies.     

A comparative study of the perception of freedom-in-leisure between stuttering and nonstuttering individuals

A central assumption, which served as the basis for this study, was that an individual who shared a social speech disfluency known as “stuttering” perceived less freedom in leisure experiences and was thought to be in a reduced position for deriving benefit from leisure than a nonstuttering person. Concomitant was the supposition that a stuttering person's functioning in leisure was adversely affected by possible transcendent manifestations of this stuttering. The population surveyed was the membership of the National Stuttering Project (NSP) comprised of both stuttering and nonstuttering persons.Results indicated that there was no significant difference in the current level of perceived freedom in leisure between stuttering and nonstuttering members of the NSP. Stuttering members, however, perceived barriers, prohibiting freedom in leisure, significantly different than nonstuttering members.No generalizations were made outside the NSP population surveyed.     

Climbing the corporate ladder: do female and male executives follow the same route?

This study compares the careers of matched samples of 69 female executives and 69 male executives by examining perceived barriers and facilitators of advancement, self-reported developmental experiences, and career histories. Consistent with tokenism theory, women reported greater barriers, such as lack of culture fit and being excluded from informal networks, and greater importance of having a good track record and developing relationships to facilitate advancement than did men. Career success, measured by organizational level and compensation, was positively related to breadth of experience and developmental assignments for both genders, but successful women were less likely than successful men to report that mentoring facilitated their advancement. Developmental experiences and career histories were similar for female and male executives, but men had more overseas assignments and women had more assignments with nonauthority relationships.