"In the US? Knowingly false and demonstrably harmful falls under libel and slander and is civilly but not criminally actionable."Depends on the individual speech or action and if the prosecutor is inclined and able to prosecute under criminal menacing or other statutes. This is highly fact specific. Burning a cross in someone's front yard can lead to a criminal charge, especially if this person is black. Threats of violence can also be criminal. Insulting speech alone is rarely if ever criminal. If you commit a crime while saying that, you're risking a hate crime classification though and an enhanced sentence.
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/12/01/news/mj1961207.txt"It is almost impossible to pursue if you don't have a really expensive lawyer."If you have a decent case, you can often get legal aid to do it or there are lots of lawyers who were nerds as kids with a grudge against bullies who do this pro bono. Even without that, it isn't THAT expensive if you have a good case.
Also, I know how to make legal, tax preparation and book keeping services unbelievably affordable for every single person in the US, but I won't do it because people are bastards and would screw me over for doing it. Private industry could do it for $25/month. Public taxes could do it for $2.73/year. (Per person of course)
"In the case of most hate speech, because the person saying it actually believes it, it doesn't count."No.... "Actually believing it" has never been a defense. If it is actually true, then truth is a defense, but then you have to actually prove the truth of the matter. Good luck. If for the sake of argument only, I really truly believe you have an STD and go around saying so, that will not stop you from winning a suit against me for slander. You bear the risk of your statements being false.
"It is also difficult to show harm in the case of hate speech because it is almost entirely social and emotional harm rather than physical or financial harm."Granted, damages (money) is the hardest thing to show. Piss off the jury enough and you might be able to get there. It is a question of fact though.
Also here's an outline I whipped up on the fly: This is just common law and shouldn't be used because it varies state to state....
A. Defamation: if it tends to harm the reputation of the plaintiff so as to lower her in the esteem of the community or to deter third persons from associating with her.
a. Elements: 1) defamatory statement 2) about the plaintiff 3) publication to a third person and 4) damage to plaintiff’s reputation.
b. Libel v Slander: libel is written and damages are presumed and slander is spoken
i. Slander per se: 1) criminal offense 2) loathsome disease 3) business 4) female lack of chastity.
ii. Innuendo: meaning behind the statement Inducement: facts that make the statement defamatory; colloquium: the existence of facts that id plaintiff as the object of the defamatory statement.
B. Common Law Defenses: 1) truth 2) absolute privilege a) government proceedings b) one spouse to another c) compelled broadcasts d) consent 3) qualified privilege a) abused with excessive publication
C. Constitutional Modification: modifies fault, falsity and damages
a. Public Official: P has to prove actual malice, truth and damages.
b. Private Person-Public Concern: negligence, truth and prove that reputation has been harmed
D. Privacy
a. Intrusion upon seclusion: 1) intent to intrude upon seclusion 2) intrusion upon seclusion 3) intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person
b. Appropriation of Name or Likeness: d is liable to p if he or she appropriates plaintiff’s name or likeness for use in commercial advertisement for a product or service
E. Public Disclosure of private facts: 1) public disclosure 2) of private facts 3) highly offensive to a reasonable person and 4) not of legitimate public concern
F. False Light Privacy: 1) Public disclosure 2) that puts the plaintiff in a false light and 3) which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person
G. Intentional Misrepresentation: 1) misrepresentation of a material fact 2) scienter 3) intent to induce reliance 4) justifiable reliance 5) damages
H. Negligent Misrepresentation : Same as above except 1) reduced to negligence 2) duty only owed by commercial suppliers of information 3) duty owed only to defendant actually knew would rely on the representation.
I. Disparagement : 1) statement derogatory to the title or quality of p’s property 2) falsity 3) malice 4) publication 5) causation and 6) damages
J. Interference with Economic Relationships: 1) a valid contract between p and third party 2) knowledge of contract by d 3) intent to interfere with contract or expectancy 4) interference caused by the defendant and 5) damage
K. Malicious Prosecution: 1) institution of criminal proceedings 2) proceeding terminates in favor of p 3) absence of probable cause and 4) malice or improper purpose
And covering all bases: God I love this comic....
http://xkcd.com/246/