Law, Culture and the Humanities 1 (online first) (2018)
Authors |
|
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 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Legal Realism, Critical Legal Studies, and Dworkin.Andrew Altman - 1986 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (3):205-235.
Citations of this work BETA
What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Definition of Antisemitism?Jan Deckers & Jonathan Coulter - forthcoming - Res Publica:1-20.
Similar books and articles
Corporate Rights to Free Speech?Mary Lyn Stoll - 2005 - Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):261-269.
Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy.Amanda Greene & Robert Mark Simpson - 2017 - Modern Law Review 80 (4):746-65.
Hate Speech and Distorted Communication: Rethinking the Limits of Incitement.Sarah Sorial - 2015 - Law and Philosophy 34 (3):299-324.
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.
Religious Freedom, Free Speech and Equality: Conflict or Cohesion?Maleiha Malik - 2011 - Res Publica 17 (1):21-40.
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.
A Kantian Conception of Free Speech.Helga Varden - 2010 - In Deidre Golash (ed.), Free Speech in a Diverse World. Springer.
Critical Legal Studies and Argumentation Theory.Dale A. Herbeck - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):719-729.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2018-08-11
Total views
11,413 ( #152 of 2,498,783 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
250 ( #2,021 of 2,498,783 )
2018-08-11
Total views
11,413 ( #152 of 2,498,783 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
250 ( #2,021 of 2,498,783 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads