Anti-Discrimination Laws: Limits On Free Speech?

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of human rights, but it is not absolute. While individuals should be free to express their ideas, opinions, and positions in public, this freedom must be balanced with the right to live and work in an environment free from discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws are designed to protect individuals from discrimination based on characteristics such as race, sex, ethnicity, age, and religion. However, these laws are sometimes challenged for infringing on free speech rights, particularly when it comes to speech that is deemed offensive or discriminatory. The line between free speech and discrimination is often blurry, and determining where to draw the line can be complex and controversial. This complexity is further compounded by the varying laws and interpretations across different countries and jurisdictions.

Freedom of speech vs. the right to not be discriminated against

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of human rights and a pillar of free and democratic societies. It is a fundamental right to be able to say, write, read, or publish whatever one wants. However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with other rights, such as the right to live and work in an environment free from discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws aim to protect individuals from discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, age, and religion, among other things. These laws are sometimes challenged on the basis of free speech rights, and the line between freedom of expression and discrimination is not always clear.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects free speech while allowing limitations on certain categories of speech. For example, speech that incites violence, discrimination, or murder is not protected by the First Amendment and is punishable by law. Similarly, speech that meets the legal standard for harassment, which includes speech that indicates discriminatory behavior, is also not protected. The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is likely to incite imminent lawless action. In addition, commercial speech, such as advertising, has diminished protection and can be restricted if it is misleading or false.

While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. The right to be free from discrimination is also a fundamental human right. Anti-discrimination laws are in place to protect individuals from being excluded or treated unfairly because of their background, skin color, religion, or other protected characteristics. These laws ensure that everyone has equal opportunities and is treated with dignity and respect.

In some cases, anti-discrimination laws have been challenged on the basis of free speech rights. For example, in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts had the First Amendment right to revoke the membership of a gay assistant scoutmaster, as requiring them to accept him as a member would compel them to support a moral position inconsistent with the organization's values. Similarly, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), the Supreme Court held that a website designer had a First Amendment right to refuse to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Balancing freedom of speech and the right to be free from discrimination can be complex and challenging. While individuals have the right to express their ideas and opinions, they do not have the right to discriminate against or harm others. Anti-discrimination laws play a crucial role in protecting vulnerable groups and ensuring equal opportunities for all. While free speech may be restricted in certain cases, it is important to ensure that these restrictions are narrowly tailored and do not silence dissent or opposition.

Hate speech and its legal status

Hate speech is a term with a varied meaning and no single, consistent definition. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals based on their membership in that group.

In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other Western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam (2017), the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.

In the United States, what is usually labelled "hate speech" is constitutionally protected. However, this does not mean that hate speech is without consequences. For example, in Brown Transport Corp. v. Commonwealth, the state of Pennsylvania stated that it was religious harassment to put religious pieces in employee newsletters and Christian-themed verses on paychecks. In Olivant v. Department of Environmental Protection, the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law found jokes emailed to a workplace department to be illegal, ruling that they defamed and dishonored men and women based on their gender, sexual preference, religion, skin pigmentation, and national and ethnic origin.

While hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, incitement to imminent violence is not. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that either criminalize these acts or impose a harsher punishment when it can be proven that the defendant targeted the victim because of their race, ethnicity, identity, or beliefs.

The United Nations takes a similar approach, supporting more positive speech and upholding respect for freedom of expression as the norm. Any restrictions must be an exception and seek to prevent harm and ensure equality or the public participation of all. The UN Rabat Plan of Action provides key guidance to states on the difference between freedom of expression and "incitement" (to discrimination, hostility, and violence), which is prohibited under criminal law.

Most developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Ireland, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. However, the implementation and interpretation of these laws vary by state.

Anti-discrimination laws and freedom of association

Freedom of association is a fundamental human right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems. It encompasses an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of a group to take collective action to pursue its interests, and the right of a group to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. However, anti-discrimination laws, which aim to prevent discrimination against particular groups, are often criticised as violations of the inherent right of free association. This conflict between freedom of association and anti-discrimination laws has been the subject of several court cases.

In the United States, the First Amendment implicitly protects freedom of association as an aspect of the right to peaceably assemble and free speech. The Supreme Court has recognised two types of association that are constitutionally protected: intimate association and expressive association. Intimate association refers to the right to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships, such as family relationships. Expressive association, on the other hand, refers to the right of groups to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment, such as speech, assembly, and the free exercise of religion.

In Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984), the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota public accommodations law requiring the United States Jaycees, a civic organisation, to admit women as members, despite the group's rules excluding women. The Court found that Minnesota had a compelling interest in providing women with the economic benefits of membership. This case established that while the right to associate necessarily implies a right not to associate, it is not absolute and may be limited by a compelling state interest.

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America, as an expressive organisation promoting a specific moral message, had the right to exclude a gay scoutmaster. The Court held that requiring the Boy Scouts to accept the scoutmaster would compel them to support a moral position contrary to their values, thereby infringing on their expressive associational rights under the First Amendment. This case highlighted the tension between anti-discrimination laws and freedom of association, with the Court prioritising freedom of association over anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation.

Anti-discrimination laws aim to prevent both individual and structural discrimination and are rooted in principles of equality. They are designed to protect against discrimination in various areas of social life, including employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. While these laws vary by jurisdiction, they commonly protect groups based on characteristics such as sex, race, religion, and disability status. Internationally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) outlines equality and freedom from discrimination as basic human rights, and nations commit to upholding these rights through the ratification of international treaties.

While freedom of association is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and may be legally restricted in certain circumstances. For example, the Civil Rights Act in the United States made private discrimination against certain protected classes illegal, limiting the freedom of association. Additionally, courts may impose restrictions on the rights of convicted criminals, including the right to freedom of association.

Anti-discrimination laws in education

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, but so is the right to be free from discrimination. While freedom of expression is important, it is not absolute, and it comes with some restrictions. For instance, you may not disclose company secrets or military plans. Similarly, laws that prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics sometimes clash with free speech rights.

In the context of education, anti-discrimination laws are enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the US Department of Education. The OCR enforces several federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. These laws include:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination.
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits disability discrimination.
• The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits age discrimination.
• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination by public entities, regardless of whether they receive federal financial assistance.
• The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (BSAEAA), a section of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which ensures that youth groups listed in Title 36 of the US Code as patriotic societies have equal access to meet on school premises.

These laws apply to all state education agencies, schools, colleges, universities, vocational schools, libraries, and museums that receive funding from the Department of Education. The OCR handles complaints, investigates, and provides remedies for discrimination. Individuals can file a complaint with the OCR within 180 days of the discrimination, and the OCR will try to obtain voluntary compliance or initiate enforcement actions if discrimination is found.

Anti-discrimination laws and the freedom of religion

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, but so is the right to be free from discrimination. While freedom of speech allows people to express their ideas, opinions, and positions in public, anti-discrimination laws protect individuals from being treated unfavourably because of their background, skin colour, or religion. These laws aim to strike a balance between protecting freedom of expression and preventing discrimination.

In the context of freedom of religion, anti-discrimination laws ensure that individuals are not discriminated against based on their religious beliefs or practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants because of their religion or lack thereof. This includes treating someone unfavourably due to their association with an individual of a particular religion. The law also mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations for their employees' religious practices, unless doing so causes an undue hardship for the employer.

The scope of anti-discrimination laws regarding religion extends beyond employment. The Fair Housing Act, for instance, prohibits religious discrimination in the rental, sale, and financing of homes. Additionally, public accommodations, such as restaurants, hotels, and entertainment venues, are legally bound to provide their services to all customers, regardless of their religious beliefs or attire.

While anti-discrimination laws protect individuals from religious discrimination, there have been instances where these laws have been challenged for allegedly infringing on freedom of speech and religion. For example, in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey anti-discrimination law infringed on the Boy Scouts' expressive associational rights by requiring them to accept a homosexual member, which contradicted their moral message. Similarly, in Elane Photography v. Willock (2013), a photography studio argued that being forced to photograph a gay wedding violated their First Amendment rights.

However, it is important to note that anti-discrimination laws do not restrict an individual's ability to express their religious beliefs. Instead, these laws aim to prevent discrimination based on those beliefs. The line between freedom of expression and discrimination can be blurry, but guidelines and legal precedents help define the boundaries. Ultimately, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that need to be respected and protected, and anti-discrimination laws play a crucial role in maintaining this balance.

Frequently asked questions