{"id":1044,"date":"2015-08-05T13:18:32","date_gmt":"2015-08-05T13:18:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=1044"},"modified":"2026-01-20T13:48:15","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T13:48:15","slug":"hate-speech-us-and-europe","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/hate-speech-us-and-europe\/","title":{"rendered":"Hate speech &#8212; US and Europe"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"width: 406px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/static.wixstatic.com\/media\/9258c1_6bff646e79b74e299f63c7d61153694f~mv2.png\/v1\/fill\/w_926,h_938,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01\/Pyramid%20of%20hate.webp\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"\" src=\"https:\/\/static.wixstatic.com\/media\/9258c1_6bff646e79b74e299f63c7d61153694f~mv2.png\/v1\/fill\/w_926,h_938,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01\/Pyramid%20of%20hate.webp\" width=\"396\" height=\"401\" \/><\/a><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Hate speech is a precursor to genocide. See Rights for Peace. https:\/\/www.rightsforpeace.org\/hate-speech<\/p><\/div>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>On May 8,\u00a0 2025, Kanye West (Ye) released a song called &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Heil_Hitler_(song)\">Heil Hitler&#8221;<\/a><\/strong> which was (exactly as it sounds) an antisemitic worship of\u00a0 \u00a0the mass murdering Nazi leader. It was immediately banned by all major social media platforms and\u00a0by countries with laws against hate speech. In Germany, <a title=\"Strafgesetzbuch section 86a\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a\"><i>Strafgesetzbuch<\/i>\u00a0section 86a<\/a> bans the dissemination of Nazi symbols, punishable with up to three years in prison or a fine.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>Hate speech<\/strong> is any verbal, published or symbolic expression that offends, threatens, or insults groups\u00a0 due to their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.\u00a0 The concern is not just &#8220;hurting people&#8217;s feelings.&#8221; Hate speech can be dangerous, and it can lead to discrimination, bias and violence. Instances of genocide are strongly linked to deliberate campaigns of hate speech such as in Nazi Germany in the 1930s; or Rwanda, Bosnia and\u00a0 Croatia in the 1990s; or Myanmar 2017-2022;\u00a0 and in Palestine, Bangladesh and other troubled regions in recent years.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Current US law concerning hate speech differs greatly from Europe and most of the rest of the world. \u00a0 Generally, the US allows hate speech under the marketplace of ideas theory that practically all speech is protected under the First Amendment until there is &#8220;imminent lawless action.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">\u00a0There is also an underlying hope that hate speech will be discouraged by\u00a0 \u00a0social reactions, \u00a0and an underlying fear that if American racists, Nazis and other deplorables are suppressed, they will take on a mantle of martyrdom.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Laws in <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hate_speech_laws_by_country\">many other democratic countries punish hate speech<\/a> and prohibit display and sale of the symbols of hatred.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In Germany, where the history of Nazis concentration camps is remembered,\u00a0 inciting hatred may lead to prison terms of up to five years. The law extends to online hate speech; internet service providers have a one-week grace period to take down hateful content before large fines are imposed.<\/li>\n<li>France gives ISPs only 24 hours to take down hate speech before criminal charges are brought. The criminal code and press laws prohibit public and private communication that is defamatory or insulting, or that incites discrimination, hatred, or violence. France also prohibits denial or minimizing of crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust.<\/li>\n<li>Europeans take the laws seriously. Mark Meechan, a Scottish commedian, was <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Count_Dankula\">fined 800 Euros<\/a> for posting a video of a dog giving the Nazi salute whenever the command &#8220;gas the Jews&#8221; was given.<\/li>\n<li>The European Union also encourages debate about restrictions on hate speech through a <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/European_Commission_against_Racism_and_Intolerance\">commission against racism and intolerance.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Most other European countries, along with Canada, Australia, India and many others, impose penalties for hate speech.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">International conventions on ending racial discrimination outlaw &#8220;all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred&#8221; and also \u00a0&#8220;any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.&#8221; \u00a0(See the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legal-project.org\/issues\/european-hate-speech-laws\">Legal Project&#8217;s site for details on individual country laws<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The European approach is more in harmony with the &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Paradox_of_tolerance\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Paradox of Tolerance<\/a>&#8221; theory, expressed by philosopher Karl Popper: \u00a0&#8220;Unlimited\u00a0 tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.&#8221; \u00a0Popper didn&#8217;t advocate the banning of all hate speech, so long as rational argument and public opinion kept it in check. However, he said, \u00a0&#8220;we should claim the right to suppress (intolerance) if necessary even by force&#8230;&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><a title=\"John Rawls\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/John_Rawls\">John Rawls<\/a>\u00a0on the other hand argues in\u00a0<i><a title=\"A Theory of Justice\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/A_Theory_of_Justice\">A Theory of Justice<\/a><\/i>\u00a0that a just society must tolerate the intolerant. But he agrees with Popper to some extent, that society&#8217;s self-preservation is more important than the\u00a0principle of tolerance: &#8220;While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.&#8221; \u00a0 \u00a0<sup id=\"cite_ref-Rawls1921_2-0\" class=\"reference\"><\/sup><\/p>\n<p><strong>Hate speech and group libel in the US \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">One way to look at hate speech is that it can be libel (defamation) of a whole group. \u00a0 For a time, US law recognized \u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/law.justia.com\/constitution\/us\/amendment-01\/44-group-libel-and-hate-speech.html\">libel for groups of people<\/a>, and held that representatives of those groups recover for (and stop) the libel. \u00a0 In a 1952 case, <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/343\/250\/case.html\">Beauharnais v Illinois, \u00a0 <\/a>\u00a0 the US Supreme Court said yes, \u00a0that anti-negro pamphlets depicting\u00a0&#8220;&#8230; depravity, criminality, unchastity or lack of virtue of citizens of Negro race and color &#8230;&#8221; could be punished by a state law. \u00a0That same year of 1952, allegations in New York that male employees of Nieman Marcus were &#8220;fairies&#8221; (gay) were found to be libelous by a federal court\u00a0because there were fewer than 25 male employees, which is a small enough group to identify individuals. \u00a0On the other hand, allegations in the same article that females were &#8220;call girls&#8221; (prostitutes) addressed a group too large for individuals to be identified, and therefore did not constitute libel.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">But these 1950s cases have not opened up a new field for litigation, in part because the 1964 New York Times v Sullivan case, and subsequent libel cases, required that individuals be identifiable and actual\u00a0damages\u00a0proven. \u00a0 One of the major legal scholars of the 20th century, <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/William_Prosser_(academic)\">William Prosser<\/a>, summed up <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dmlp.org\/legal-guide\/who-can-sue-defamation\">the idea of group libe<\/a>l in US law.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">In order to be actionable, a defamatory statement must be &#8220;of and concerning&#8221; the plaintiff. This means that a defamation plaintiff must show that a reasonable person would understand that the statement was referring to him or her. Of course, if a blog post or online article identifies the plaintiff by name, this requirement will be easily met. The plaintiff need not be specifically named, however, if there are enough identifying facts that any (but not necessarily every) person reading or hearing it would reasonably understand it to refer to the plaintiff. For example, a statement that &#8220;a local policeman who recently had an auto accident had been seen drinking alcohol while on duty&#8221; would likely be actionable because the policeman could be identified based on his recent accident.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">So, for example, when the \u00a0Ramapough Lunaape Nation, a Native American tribe located mostly in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., wanted to sue the producers\u00a0who made the movie &#8220;Out of the Furnace&#8221; in 2014, the suit was dismissed (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2014\/05\/15\/federal-trial-court-rejects-group-libel-lawsuit-against-makers-of-the-movie-out-of-the-furnace\/?utm_term=.b85fa2c9dfd7\">Washington Post, May 24, 2014<\/a>). (Also see\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/224311150\/Furnace#download\"><i>Degroat v. Cooper<\/i>\u00a0(D.N.J. May 14, 2014)<\/a>.\u00a0 And when a Montana law outlawed hate speech against Jewish people or members of any other religion as a group libel, a state court found that the law was unconstitutional on its face and dismissed the charges. (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2015\/09\/16\/group-libel-hate-speech-charges-in-montana-dismissed\/\">Washington Post, Sept. 16, 2015<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Hate speech and fighting words in the US \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">&#8220;Fighting words&#8221; are those which might produce lawless action. \u00a0 The case that established the fighting words doctrine was \u00a0<strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire\">Chaplinsky v. New \u00a0Hampshire<\/a>,<\/strong> 1942. \u00a0Chaplinsky was cited for a breech of peace for calling a policeman\u00a0\u201ca damned fascist.\u201d The state law specifically stated: \u201cNo person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person\u2026\u201d He appealed and the\u00a0US Supreme Court said that since the words could lead to action, \u00a0the state law\u00a0was Constitutional.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul\">RAV v. St Paul,<\/a> <\/strong>1992 \u2014 An ordinance banned burning crosses, displaying swastikas or expressing religious or racial hatred.\u00a0 An underaged person (R.A. V.) was charged with vandalism and hate speech.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The Supreme Court invalidated the St. Paul ordinance, holding that the ordinance was invalid even if it was limited only to fighting words because the ordinance was selective.\u00a0 It prohibited only some fighting words (those related to race, for example), but not all fighting words (those related to political affiliation). (See Jeffrey R. Stone, <a href=\"https:\/\/chicagounbound.uchicago.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=3246&amp;context=journal_articles\">Hate Speech and the Constitution<\/a>, 1994).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div id=\"attachment_4645\" style=\"width: 310px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/SpikeLeeKlansman.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-4645\" class=\"wp-image-4645 size-medium\" src=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/SpikeLeeKlansman-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/SpikeLeeKlansman-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/SpikeLeeKlansman-1024x682.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/SpikeLeeKlansman-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/SpikeLeeKlansman-800x533.jpg 800w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/SpikeLeeKlansman.jpg 1240w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><p id=\"caption-attachment-4645\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">From Spike Lee&#8217;s movie, Klansman.<\/p><\/div>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Virginia_v_Black\">Virginia v. Black<\/a>,<\/strong> 2003 \u2013A Virginia state law that bans cross-burning is (as in RAV) a violation of free speech rights, but if the cross is burned with the intent to intimidate, a law to prevent cross burning\u00a0 is NOT unconstitutional. Arguments are discussed here at a Freedom Forum site. A burning cross, so long associated with racial violence in the US, is a \u201ctrue threat\u201d (as in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705) A state may choose to prohibit \u201conly those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The &#8216;True Threats&#8221; standard in Virginia v Black is probably the most comprehensive, according to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mtsu.edu\/first-amendment\/article\/1025\/true-threats#:~:text=In%20legal%20parlance%20a%20true,acting%20at%20the%20speaker's%20behest.\">First Amendment Encyclopedia,<\/a>&#8221; in which the speaker &#8220;means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. . . . Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">How far can freedom of speech go? What about a threat to the president of the US?\u00a0 Or from the president of the US?\u00a0 It&#8217;s important to remember that violence has a strong causal link to hate speech and threats. \u00a0The issue is how to decide what is hyperbole, and protected speech, on the one hand, and what is a real threat to other people.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Another case that opened up major questions about the balance between freedom of speech and the need to protect people from violence was <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Neal_Horsley#The_.22Nuremberg_Files.22\">Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0 in which an anti-abortion web site engaged in highly explicit \u00a0threats that may have been linked to a pattern of murders of abortion providing doctors. The web site <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20060929234429\/http:\/\/www.ncac.org\/censorship_news\/20030305~cn073~The_Limits_of_Free_Speech.cfm\">was shut down by its independent provider.<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0The court said:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\"><em>To rise to incitement, the speech must be capable of &#8220;producing imminent lawless action.&#8221; Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447. Here, the statements were made at public rallies, far away from the doctors, and before an audience that included members of the press. ACLA offered rewards to those who stopped the doctors at &#8220;some indefinite future time,&#8221; Hess, 414 U.S. at 108, and the ambiguous message was hardly what one would say to incite others to immediately break the law. Finally, the statements were not in fact followed by acts of violence. See Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 928 (&#8220;[H]ad [the speech] been followed by acts of violence, a substantial question would be presented&#8221; as to incitement, but &#8220;[w]hen such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.&#8221;).<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The web site featured X-ed out names of doctors who had been assassinated and also contained inflammatory \u201cwanted for murder and genocide\u201d posters of living doctors. There were also testimonials to <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Paul_Jennings_Hill\">Paul Hill,<\/a> an anti-abortion fanatic who used a shotgun at short range to kill a doctor and his guard.\u00a0 Hill was executed for murder in 2003.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">A jury found that the ACLA \u00a0web site contained \u201ctrue threats\u201d and violated the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances (which protects against threats) and ordered the site taken down. The ACLA won at the 9th Circuit appeals level, but the case was heard again <em>en banc<\/em> and Planned Parenthood won. The coalition appealed to the US Supreme Court but cert. was denied in June 2003. <a href=\"http:\/\/ir.lawnet.fordham.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=3953&amp;context=flr\">Lori Weiss \u00a0(in Fordham Law Review, 2004) <\/a>argued that the FACE law is not a sufficient legal doctrine for this area of First Amendment jurisprudence, and suggested distinctions between political and non-political speech and also between \u00a0public and private people.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>There are many different opinions<\/strong> about the definition of hate speech and its link to action. \u00a0Recently former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sued the New York Times for libel in connection with a statement showed some of her campaign literature with little &#8220;targets&#8221; over democratic members of congress. \u00a0 The Times aid such rhetoric was leading to a rising climate of violence.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Elonis_v._United_States\"><strong>Elonis v US, 2015<\/strong><\/a> &#8212;\u00a0 \u00a0Supreme Court case about true threats &#8212;\u00a0 whether a\u00a0 criminal conviction requires proof of an accused person&#8217;s subjective intent to threaten, or whether it is enough to show that a &#8220;reasonable person&#8221; would regard the statement by the accused as threatening. The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/14pdf\/13-983_7l48.pdf\">court said<\/a> it was.\u00a0 This was the first time that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mtsu.edu\/first-amendment\/article\/1025\/true-threats\">true threats doctrine<\/a> was applied to online speech.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Does this mean that the US Supreme Court endorses hate speech?\u00a0 No.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The government cannot constitutionally restrict advocacy of communism, agitation against an on-going war, burning of the American flag, or the expression of ideas that deeply offend others&#8230; It is also foreclosed from restricting speech that insults or degrades particular racial, religious, ethnic or gender groups. <span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>The point is not that such expression is harmless.It is, rather, that there are better ways to address the harm than by giving government the power to decide which ideas and opinions the citizens of a free and self-governing nation may and may not express.\u00a0 \u00a0&#8212; <a href=\"https:\/\/chicagounbound.uchicago.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=3246&amp;context=journal_articles\">Geoffrey R. Stone, 1994\u00a0<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>More information: \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.europarl.europa.eu\/RegData\/etudes\/BRIE\/2025\/772890\/EPRS_BRI(2025)772890_EN.pdf\"><strong>MUST READ<\/strong>: European Parliament statement on hate speech<\/a> June 2025. <em>&#8220;Differences between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) over the regulation of online platforms have taken on a new dimension under the Trump administration. Senior members of the US administration have strongly criticised the EU for &#8216;limiting free speech&#8217; and have called the EU&#8217;s content moderation law &#8216;incompatible with America&#8217;s free speech tradition&#8217;. Much of the debate is informed by misconceptions and misunderstandings.&#8221;\u00a0<\/em><\/li>\n<li>\n<div data-sfc-cp=\"\" data-hveid=\"CAYQAA\" data-processed=\"true\">The United Nations and local groups are working to counter hate speech (most recently in Bangladesh)\u00a0 through <a href=\"https:\/\/unsdg.un.org\/latest\/stories\/combating-hate-speech-lessons-asia\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" data-processed=\"true\">UNSDG<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/voicebd.org\/https-counterhatespeech-net\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" data-processed=\"true\">VOICE<\/a> initiatives. These positive speech efforts focus on <span style=\"color: #444444;\">digital literacy and responsible internet use;\u00a0 <\/span><span style=\"color: #444444;\">tolerance, empathy, and social cohesion; and t<\/span><span style=\"color: #444444;\">raining influencers to generate positive narratives.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hate_speech\"> Hate Speech<\/a>\u00a0&#8212; Wikipedia<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.cfr.org\/backgrounder\/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons\">Hate speech<\/a> &#8211; global overview by the Council on Foreign Relations, 2019.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On May 8,\u00a0 2025, Kanye West (Ye) released a song called &#8220;Heil Hitler&#8221; which was (exactly as it sounds) an antisemitic worship of\u00a0 \u00a0the mass murdering Nazi leader. It was immediately banned by all major social media platforms and\u00a0by countries &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/hate-speech-us-and-europe\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1044","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1044"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1044\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7167,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1044\/revisions\/7167"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}