Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This report examines the fundamental structure of hate speech regulation under the United States Constitution, using the Matal v. Tam decision (2017) as a theoretical reference point, and explores its implications for regulating hate speech in sporting events.

Paper long abstract

This report examines the fundamental structure of hate speech regulation under the United States Constitution, using the Matal v. Tam decision (2017) as a theoretical reference point, and then explores the implications of this legal doctrine for regulating hate speech within the space of sporting events. The case concerned the constitutionality of a provision in the federal Trademark Act prohibiting the registration of trademarks deemed “derogatory to others,” specifically regarding the name “The Slants” used by an Asian-American rock band as their band name. The U.S. Supreme Court held that this provision constitutes content-based regulation. It ruled that imposing state disadvantages based solely on the potential for expression to be perceived as offensive violates the First Amendment principle prohibiting the government from discriminating against “offensive speech.” This report, building on that ruling, assumes that under the First Amendment—which strictly prohibits discrimination based on the content of expression, particularly on the basis of specific viewpoints—it is even more difficult for the state to regulate discriminatory expression by spectators in spaces managed by private entities, such as sports matches where the state is not directly involved. It then theoretically examines how hate speech regulation in sports might be structured. In the United States, stadiums are generally considered private spaces managed by private entities under the public forum doctrine, not public facilities managed by the state. Consequently, regulations imposed by leagues or clubs on spectator expression are not considered state action. As a result, hate speech occurring at sporting events has not been subject to state regulation and has traditionally been addressed through private discipline based on the facility management rights of leagues or clubs and spectator agreements.

Building upon this framework of American law, this report examines the “JAPANESE ONLY” incident in Japan's J.League to explore the permissible scope of regulation against such expression. Specifically, drawing on the requirements of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as articulated in Matal v. Tam, it conducts a comparative legal analysis of the extent to which the state or private entities may intervene regarding expression that could be deemed discriminatory.