The harms of verbal and textual hatred

In this chapter, I ask why it is that these speech acts are perceived to be—and are constructed as—more damaging to democracy than that of vilification against marginalized citizens of Western nations. Of all the nations mentioned previously, Australia, as with the United States, also stands alone, however, in a very different way to the United States. Unlike other Western nations, Australian citizens do not have a legislative or constitutional commitment to free speech. Quite the opposite. With the exception of a very limited implied right to freedom of political communication—which has been constructed in constitutional law as primarily relating to the organization and operation of elections ( Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v. the Commonwealth , 1992)—speech and text in Australia are regulated not only to manage the economy and terrorism, but more important for this chapter, the harms caused to democratic participation by racial, ethnoreligious, and sexuality vilification.