Doctoral Dissertation Research: Free Speech or Hate Speech? Democracy, Racism and the Law in France and the United States

在民主连续性与鼓吹种族主义意识形态之间的联系上，历史提供了两个截然不同的教训。首先，民主的普遍捍卫要求民主政府接受强有力的、有效的、合法的手段，以限制种族主义的蔓延。其次，民主得以延续的最可靠手段是大力捍卫言论自由原则。这些教训中，哪一条最真实地说明了民主对种族主义意识形态的韧性？迄今为止，还没有对不同法律标准在减少歧视行为和确保个人和群体适当范围的民主权利方面的相对有效性进行科学分析。这项研究比较了法国和美国公民对仇恨言论的反应，以及允许或禁止这种言论的法律条件。将在这两个国家进行以调查为基础的实验以及焦点小组。

History offers two contrasting lessons on the linkage between democratic continuity and the advocacy of racist ideology. First, the general defense of democracy requires that democratic governments embrace strong, effective, legal means to confine the contagion of racism. Second, the surest means for the survival of democracy is through the vigorous defense of the principle of free expression. Which of these lessons is the truest account of the resiliency of democracy to racist ideologies? To date there has been no scientific analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different legal standards in terms of their ability to diminish discriminatory behavior and to secure an appropriate range of democratic rights for individuals and groups. This research compares the responses of French and United States citizens to hateful speech, and to the legal conditions that would permit or prohibit such expression. Survey based experiments as well as focus groups will be conducted in these two countries.