Chapter 5 introduces two approaches to politeness: politeness as the avoidance of face-threatening acts and politeness as the enhancement of communicative concord. Over time, politeness has changed significantly. The Old English period was a period of “discernment” politeness, growing out of the fixed social order. The Middle English period saw the rise of “deference” politeness following the French fashion (i.e., the honorific system of second-person pronouns). A face-based system began in Early Modern English, but studies are not consistent in finding this to be a positive or negative politeness system. The deference politeness system fell out of use. The eighteenth century extolled polite manners and behavior and has been described as a “compliment culture”. The modern period is characterized by “non-imposition” politeness, most obvious in the development of indirect directives (negative politeness). At the same time, a system of camaraderie politeness, which increases solidarity and eliminates distance between individuals, coexists (positive politeness). The chapter provides case studies of compliments, insults, thanks, and responses to thanks in the history of English.

This chapter discuss the extent to which the law of tort can provide relief for victims of hate speech in Japan. With regard to hate speech targeting a particular individual or organization, there is a possibility that the victim may win compensation for damages under a claim for the torts of defamation or of insult. Given that hate speech typically targets no specific individual or organization, but rather defames and degrades a group and advocates the elimination of all members of the group, it is difficult – if not impossible – to impose tort liability on the speaker.

The Constitution of Japan, enacted in 1946, protects freedom of expression in its article 21. If the legislature were to enact a ban on hate speech, then the constitutionality of that ban would become a critical issue. In light of the jurisprudence relating to freedom of expression established by the Supreme Court of Japan, it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of any such ban. However, constitutional academics have constructed an alternative freedom of expression jurisprudence mainly following that of the Supreme Court of United States. Under this alternative jurisprudence, it becomes much more difficult to uphold the constitutionality of any such ban, and this chapter considers whether and how such ban might be justified in Japan.