FREE SPEECH ON RACE DIFFERS OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.

Updated: After a Minnesota incident involving a racial slur directed at a child went viral and generated controversial fundraising, questions arise about how different countries handle hate speech. How would this situation be handled in other parts of the world? 

In a case that has sparked national controversy, a crowdfunding campaign for Shiloh Hendrix, a Minnesota woman who admitted in a viral video to using a racial slur against a 5-year-old child at a public park, has accumulated over $750,000 in donations. After pulbic pressure, the Christian-based platform reportedly removed numerous comments containing white supremacist rhetoric that accompanied many donations, and have claimed to freeze the funds raised by Hendrix. 

The incident highlights stark differences between the United States' approach to what is deemed hate speech - and that of many other nations around the world. While one could argue, that Hendrix faces social consequences, U.S. law provides not only a significant protection for such speech under the 1rst amendment, but it also allows her to potentially profit from the incident she reportedly instigated. And by no means is this a loophole in our justice system. No competent lawyer would even recommend Hendrix should be arrested for such an incident. 

But what many would say separates the United States from other countries is in fact our "free speech". However, globally, this is not neccesarily the case in other civil democracies. 

Global Legal Landscape

Had Hendrix's actions occurred in many European countries, the legal ramifications could have been dramatically different. Many democracies worldwide have implemented specific legislation criminalizing hate speech and more specific, racial epithets, with penalties ranging from fines to even imprisonment. 

"The U.S. stands as an outlier among Western democracies in its broad protection of speech that would be illegal in many other countries," explains Dr. Miranda Chen, Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at Georgetown University. "What might result in social consequences here could trigger criminal charges elsewhere."

European Approach

European nations maintain some of the world's strictest hate speech laws. In Germany, under Section 130 of the Criminal Code, using racial slurs publicly can result in fines and up to five years imprisonment. Ironically, some books that are deemed to incite hatred are banned. This stringent approach stems from the country's post-World War II reckoning with its Nazi past. 

In the UK for example, uttering a racial epiphet could be added to your criminal record.

For example, the Public Order Act of 1986 creates the concept of "racially or religiously aggravated" offences. If an offence under the Public Order Act is deemed to be racially aggravated, the penalties are significantly higher. Another law was passed in 2003 for online offences. 

France's Pleven Law similarly prohibits incitement to discrimination or hatred based on ethnicity, with penalties including fines up to €45,000 and imprisonment up to one year. The United Kingdom's Public Order Act criminalizes racially aggravated harassment with penalties including fines and imprisonment up to seven years.

Beyond Europe

Canada takes a middle-ground approach. While protecting free expression, Canadian law draws a firmer line than the U.S., with Criminal Code Section 319 prohibiting public incitement of hatred against identifiable groups, punishable by up to two years imprisonment.

In Australia, the Racial Discrimination Act Section 18C prohibits acts likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate based on race, with civil remedies including damages. New Zealand's Human Rights Act similarly prohibits inciting racial disharmony.

South Africa, given its history of apartheid, has enacted the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, which prohibits hate speech with penalties including fines, damages, and community service.

U.S. Exception

Constitutional scholar Robert Williams notes, "The American approach prioritizes free speech to an extent virtually unmatched globally, based on the belief that counter-speech, not government restriction, is the appropriate remedy for harmful expression."

Critics argue this approach leaves vulnerable populations inadequately protected and can normalize hateful rhetoric. Supporters counter that government regulation of speech poses greater dangers to democratic functioning than offensive expression.

The Hendrix case underscores the transatlantic divide on balancing free expression against protection from harmful speech. While she faces no legal consequences for her words in America, in many other democracies, similar actions could result in criminal charges, financial penalties, or imprisonment.

As societies continue navigating the complexities of harmful speech in an increasingly connected world, the contrasting legal frameworks highlight fundamental differences in how nations weigh competing values of liberty and equality.