Interview: Jeremy Waldron

by Fiona Rae / 18 February, 2012
The esteemed legal and political philosopher has turned his attention to the conundrum of legislating against hate speech.

As a boy in Invercargill, Jeremy Waldron was captivated by one volume of his Oxford Junior Encyclopedia: the one entitled Law and Order. It was a prescient choice for a man who has become an esteemed legal and political philosopher and in 2010 stepped into one of the same Oxford University’s most prestigious positions, Chichele Professor-Elect of Social and Political Theory at All Souls College.

Waldron studied at Oxford in the early 1980s, but in the intervening years lived mostly in the US, holding professorships at Berkeley, Princeton, Columbia and New York University. His intellectual home, however, has remained the same: the intersection of law and political philosophy, disciplines that he says “overlap at their centres rather than their edges”.

He studied philosophy and law at the University of Otago, qualifying as a barrister and solicitor in 1978, but never practised law. He was drawn instead to its philosophical roots and in recent years turned his attention to the issue of hate speech.

Discussions of hate speech hinge on a conflict between two values: the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom from harm. When these values clash, as they inevitably do, liberal societies must decide which one has the right of way. New Zealand, like the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Australia, sets a limit on freedom of expression by outlawing hate speech, which our Human Rights Act defines as “threatening, abusive or insulting” speech “likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons … on the ground of [their] colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”.

In the US, the treasured First Amendment means that any law restricting freedom of expression is deemed unconstitutional, a proposition that is not without its controversies. “We still have the scourge of occasional cross-burnings,” says Waldron, on the phone from New York. “It might only affect people on a particular street or neighbourhood, but it summons up nightmarish resonances – the prospect of a return to the racial terrorism that disfigured this country for 100 years after the abolition of slavery.”

A 2003 Supreme Court decision held that, in and of itself, cross-burning did not meet the threshold of demonstrating “an intent to intimidate”. So, as things stand, the Ku Klux Klan remains free to say hateful things about minorities, even when the aim is to produce distress, contempt and loathing.

Waldron recognises that many Americans are proud of their First Amendment rights and that change is unlikely anytime soon. Yet in his influential Holmes Lectures at Harvard University, he offered a defence of hate-speech legislation and wondered aloud whether the US might not learn something from the democracies of Europe and the Commonwealth.

“We use the law where there are crucial interests that need to be protected,” Waldron says. “Even though the law can’t turn haters into lovers; even though it can’t change the morals or attitudes of those who speak hatefully; the crucial thing is the dignity, the assurance and the tolerable life circumstances offered to vulnerable groups. That’s the law’s main target.” As the word “assurance” implies, the very existence of hate-speech legislation offers peace of mind: it provides boundaries; an assurance that things will not be allowed to get out of hand.

In New Zealand, hate-speech legislation has not been punitive. Last year the Human Rights Commission fielded about 500 race-related complaints and enquiries – about a quarter in reference to hate speech – but in the 19 years that the legislation has existed, not a single prosecution has been made.

For many of us, media controversies are the most recognisable tests of free speech: Paul Henry’s Breakfast comments about Indians, and Michael Laws’s swipes at journalists. In Waldron’s view, though, these belong to the low end of the spectrum, where the law doesn’t need to play a role. In between the power of law and the effect of social sanctions is the territory of employers, particularly those, like TV channels, with public exposure.

“Even in countries that don’t legislate against hate speech, like the US, the remarks that Paul Henry made would probably have cost him his job. I don’t think that’s inappropriate – his remarks were entirely offensive – but it would be inappropriate to make remarks like that the focus of legislation. Law is just one among many mechanisms that society has to control the boundaries of tolerable and intolerable behaviour. We should probably prosecute only the most egregious, most vicious examples [of hate speech].”

The worry, of course, is that by restricting speech, even the clearly obnoxious instances, we endanger the kinds of speech we value. Dissent, criticism and artistic controversy are important markers of demo­cratic health. The 1988 novel The Satanic Verses prompted Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa, pronouncing a death sentence on author Salman Rushdie. For Waldron, the case is useful for clarifying the bounds of permissibility.

“I would draw a line, if possible, between something that is offensive to a religion and something that is degrading. Rushdie’s book … offended a great many Muslims and it offended Islamic sensibilities. But then you have libel, degrading the dignity of a whole group of people – that’s something different.

“Although you may offend me when you cast aspersions on the founder of my religion, you don’t necessarily degrade me, or lessen my social standing, or make it more difficult for me to live my life. So, saying, for example, ‘all Muslims are terrorists’ seems to me something we should be very careful about and probably restrict. Saying something about the Prophet would be offensive but permissible.”

This position is unlikely to impress the absolutists who regard the right to free speech as an all-or-nothing matter. For Waldron, though, such matters are rarely that simple. But he wonders whether the absolutists are the best judges of the effects of hate speech.

“They are really strutting out their own ability to tolerate hate speech. Yet the ability of a well-heeled, well-insulated white liberal person to tolerate hate speech is quite a different matter to the people who are being libelled; to the people who bring up their children in the midst of such insults and have to explain to them what’s going on.”

The very idea that rights are absolute is not uncontroversial, especially for civil and political rights. Certainly, an ideal democracy in an ideal world is built on an ideal set of rights, one of which is the right to free speech. But in the real world, where rights will inevitably clash, it isn’t obvious that limiting a right necessarily means limiting the quality of democracy.

“For instance, if you limit the right to vote to a certain class of people, then you are beginning to attack the fundamentals of democracy. If you limit the basis on which parties can be formed, as countries like India do, to ensure that parties can’t embody religious or inter-communal antagonisms, then you will affect democracy, but perhaps in a healthy way.”

Waldron’s pragmatism recognises the complexities of the political world. “The law is an important repository of moral knowledge. Its choices and its intelligent consideration of choices bring into focus what moral and political philosophers want to talk about.”

See also

New Zealand-born David Hall is a doctoral researcher in political theory at the University of Oxford.
MostReadArticlesCollectionWidget - Most Read - Used in articles
AdvertModule - Advert - M-Rec / Halfpage


Jacinda Ardern pregnant: Politicians past and present lend their support
86105 2018-01-19 15:45:44Z Politics

Jacinda Ardern pregnant: Politicians past and pres…

by RNZ

Politicians from at home and abroad are reaching out to offer congratulations to the Prime Minister mum-to-be.

Read more
Jacinda Ardern is going to be a Prime Minister AND a mum
86091 2018-01-19 12:36:44Z Politics

Jacinda Ardern is going to be a Prime Minister AND…

by Katie Parker

New Zealand’s newly minted PM and bizarrely cool and normal lady Jacinda Ardern has announced that she and partner Clarke Gayford are expecting a baby

Read more
Jacinda Ardern announces pregnancy
86074 2018-01-19 11:11:36Z Politics

Jacinda Ardern announces pregnancy

by RNZ

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced that she is pregnant, with the baby due in June.

Read more
What the media silly season taught us
85933 2018-01-19 00:00:00Z Politics

What the media silly season taught us

by Graham Adams

To the eternal gratitude of media chiefs, each holiday period seems to throw up at least one minor scandal that runs in the absence of anything newsy.

Read more
Richard Prebble: Jacinda Ardern will face the tyranny of events
86009 2018-01-19 00:00:00Z Politics

Richard Prebble: Jacinda Ardern will face the tyra…

by Richard Prebble

I predicted Bill English would lose the election and the winner would be Winston Peters. But no forecaster, including the PM, predicted her pregnancy.

Read more
Aokigahara: More than just the ‘suicide forest’
85966 2018-01-19 00:00:00Z World

Aokigahara: More than just the ‘suicide forest’

by Justin Bennett

It's known as a 'suicide forest', but Justin Bennett found Aokigahara's quiet beauty outweighed its infamous reputation.

Read more
Truth and Lye: New perspectives on the brilliance of Len Lye
85816 2018-01-19 00:00:00Z Arts

Truth and Lye: New perspectives on the brilliance …

by Sally Blundell

New essays on New Zealand-born US artist Len Lye elevate him to the status of Australasia’s most notable 20th-century artist.

Read more
Brain activity may hold the secret to helping infertile couples
86046 2018-01-19 00:00:00Z Health

Brain activity may hold the secret to helping infe…

by Nicky Pellegrino

For about a third of infertility cases in New Zealand, there is no obvious reason why seemingly fertile couples struggle to conceive.

Read more