“Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech”

Law, Culture and the Humanities 1 (online first) (2018)
Authors
Rebecca Ruth Gould
University of Birmingham
Abstract
The challenge posed by legal indeterminacy to legal legitimacy has generally been considered from points of view internal to the law and its application. But what becomes of legal legitimacy when the legal status of a given norm is itself a matter of contestation? This article, the first extended scholarly treatment of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s new definition of antisemitism, pursues this question by examining recent applications of the IHRA definition within the UK following its adoption by the British government in 2016. Instead of focusing on this definition’s substantive content, I show how the document reaches beyond its self-described status as a “non-legally binding working definition” and comes to function as what I call a quasi-law, in which capacity it exercises the de facto authority of the law, without having acquired legal legitimacy. Broadly, this work elucidates the role of speech codes in restricting freedom of expression within liberal states.
Keywords free speech  academic freedom  censorship  speech codes  hate speech  legal indeterminacy  Critical Legal Studies  Critical Race Studies  political theory  universities  Israel/Palestine
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Politics of Free Speech.Scott D. Gerber - 2004 - Social Philosophy and Policy 21 (2):23-47.
What is so Special About [Free] Speech?DouglasN Husak - 1985 - Law and Philosophy 4 (1):1 - 15.
On Performative in Legal Discourse.L. Fiorito - 2006 - Metalogicon 2:101-112.
Corporate Rights to Free Speech?Mary Lyn Stoll - 2005 - Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):261-269.
What is Hate Speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate.Alexander Brown - 2017 - Law and Philosophy 36 (4):419-468.
What is Hate Speech? Part 2: Family Resemblances.Alexander Brown - 2017 - Law and Philosophy 36 (5):561-613.
Defining 'Speech': Subtraction, Addition, and Division.Robert Mark Simpson - 2016 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 29 (2):457-494.
Free Speech and Offensive Expression.Judith Wagner DeCew - 2004 - Social Philosophy and Policy 21 (2):81-103.
Political Liberalism, Free Speech and Public Reason.Matteo Bonotti - 2015 - European Journal of Political Theory 14 (2):180-208.
Free Speech and Illocution.Rae Langton & Jennifer Hornsby - 1998 - Legal Theory 4 (1):21-37.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-08-11

Total downloads
5,560 ( #98 of 2,287,903 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5,560 ( #21 of 2,287,903 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature