Hate speech (or antilocution, or fighting words) is speech that incites other people to hate a certain group in society defined by common characteristics (race, gender, religion etc.). It usually also incites to commit violence and discrimination based on hatred.
The most famous case is that of the Danish Muhammad cartoons. These cartoons led to worldwide protest and expressions of anger and hate, not only against the cartoonists in question, their newspaper or their country, but against liberals and democrats in general.
However, hate speech is by no means an exclusively Muslim matter. It can be found everywhere where there is hate: it can be racist, anti-gay, islamophobe, etc. It can also be framed in anti-terrorist language: many western countries have initiated legislation outlawing hate speech that is part of Muslim mobilization of terrorists (in militant mosques for example).
Given the importance of freedom of expression, it is not universally accepted that hate speech can be legally prohibited. There is of course article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which outlaws hate speech:
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
However, contrary to hate crimes, such as attack on gays or muslims or writers/movie makers/cartoonists critical of Islam etc., the basic rule should be that speech as such is not a crime, even speech expressing or inciting hatred, violence or discrimination. Speech is protected by the right to free speech.
However, this right, like many human rights, is not absolute and can be limited when it endangers other human rights (like the right to life and bodily integrity, the right not to suffer discrimination etc.). The general defense of hateful speech has therefore some exceptions. It’s a thin line between hateful words and hateful actions. Impressionable people can be led to violent crimes by hate speech. Hate is taught. The example of the Muhammad cartoons protests is again telling in this respect. Many protesters were encouraged by some Muslim leaders to commit acts of violence.
But much depends on the circumstances, the context and the manner of speech. Islamophobia in front of a crowded mosque is obviously not the same thing as islamophobia in an obscure publication. Examples of speech, in the wider sense of the word, such as hanging a noose in a tree in the front yard of the house of an African-American family, or spraying graffiti on someone’s car or house, are more of a problem than posting a picture of a Koran in the toilet on a blog or a website. The first examples are clearly intimidation and can force people to sell their houses and move somewhere else. This has human rights implications (freedom of residence and property rights), which the latter examples don’t have (it’s difficult to argue that a photo of the Koran in a toilet, although undoubtedly an expression of hatred, harms anyone’s freedom of religion).
When speech has implications for the rights of some people, it is legitimate to consider limiting this speech, according to the rules set out in the introductory post of this series.
An important distinction here: all this is about hate, not about speech that is merely offensive, insulting, ridiculing etc. That’s the topic of another post. The distinction, however, can be blurred. What is hateful and what is merely offensive is a matter of personal conviction, it differs between groups and it changes over time. Some groups may be more sensitive than others. If one decides to legislate the matter, this can complicate things.
Moreover, what to someone can be seen as hate – for example homophobia – may be a central tenet of someone else’s religion and therefore protected by the freedom of religion. However, the freedom of religion is not absolute either.
And finally, some examples of speech that were once considered to be hateful – such as “nigger” – have been reclaimed by the groups that were previously targeted, and are sometimes even used as a badge of pride.
Another distinction: it is perhaps possible to imagine hate speech that is not directly or indirectly inciting violence and/or discrimination. Obviously, this kind of hate speech is less dangerous. However, like derogatory speech or offensive speech it does create a problem. It perpetuates negative stereotypes, devalues collective identities, deepens social cleavages and conflicts, makes it more difficult for the community to accept new identities, and it makes debate more difficult. So it makes it more difficult to create and uphold a tolerant, diverse society in which there can be civilized debate and discussion leading to better knowledge.
However, is this reason enough for a legal prohibition on hate speech? I don’t think so. Is it reason enough to combat hate speech with other means? Sure. The remedy for harmful speech is not necessarily prohibition but counter-speech, and sometimes it is best to just ignore some kinds of speech. Engaging the hate mongers, let alone prosecuting them, gives them legitimacy, publicity, and under-dog or victim status.
[…] argued before in favor of possible and limited restrictions on hate speech (see’a0here,’a0here,’a0here and’a0here). Although I take human rights, and especially freedom of expression, very […]
LikeLike
[…] siit […]
LikeLike
[…] (Image via) […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Kyle Marchand.
LikeLike
Please keep writing, you could be saving lives. I’m affraid that the hidden hate speeches that most don’t see by the powers that be, become reallity.
LikeLike
[…] this respect, polygamy is similar to’a0hate speech. In the case of hate speech we are also dealing with a presumptive right, but one that can be […]
LikeLike
[…] Hate speech laws ‘a0have been voted to silence jihadist hate preachers,’a0silencing’a0others at the same time. […]
LikeLike
[…] on the impact of language and speech acts on other rights and the rights of others. For example, if hate speech violates other people’s rights (such as their freedom of residence or movement), then this […]
LikeLike
[…] this respect, polygamy is similar to hate speech. In the case of hate speech we are also dealing with a presumptive right, but one that can be […]
LikeLike
[…] and gender discrimination. Furthermore, it implies the free dissemination and reproduction of hate and it therefore fosters violence, racism and different kinds of “phobias”. And, […]
LikeLike
[…] the other hand, some actions that are unmistakably speech – such as hate speech, incitement etc. – are often justifiably excluded from the protection of the right to free […]
LikeLike
[…] A related post about self-defeating human rights is here. More on pornography, political correctness and hate speech. […]
LikeLike
[…] of the consequences of hate speech are human rights violations; others are not. Only the former are good reasons to criminalize hate […]
LikeLike
[…] speech is similar, although not identical to some other cases that I discussed previously, such as hate speech, speech that teaches the methods of illegal activity, death threats, and incitement to violence. […]
LikeLike
[…] The article linked to also irresponsibly blurs the differences between hate speech and hate crime. When you do that, it’s of course much easier to attack hate crime laws […]
LikeLike
[…] example of the Matthew Effect in human rights can be found in hate speech laws. The laws may initially impose limits on the freedom of speech that crack down on cases of hate […]
LikeLike
[…] to free speech, is quite different from the definition in the U.S. And quite different as well from what I personally think is correct. I believe Canada is on the wrong track in this respect, and should move closer to the U.S. […]
LikeLike
[…] of the freedom of speech (the First Amendment in the U.S.), or should it rather be an example of hate speech that can and should be made […]
LikeLike
[…] The place where speech takes place does matter, as I have mentioned already in the case of hate speech (hate speech in front of an angry mob gathered at the house of a pedophile is different from the […]
LikeLike
[…] dealt with the first one before, in this post (where I argued for a very limited possibility to restrict hate speech), so here I’ll focus […]
LikeLike
[…] words are written or spoken words expressed to incite violence. This is related to the topic of hate speech, but it isn’t quite the same thing. Hate speech isn’t necessarily intended to incite […]
LikeLike
[…] the former case it’s also called derogatory speech, and in the latter case it’s called hate speech. Both cases can be examples of prejudice, prejudice in the sense of an opinion reflecting negative […]
LikeLike