Does hate speech serve any positive functions in a democratic social order? Who has the power to define what is and what isn’t hate speech? Is the rise of extremism inevitable if hate speech is legally protected?
Hate speech should never be protected. The constitution gives a person various rights including freedom of religion, speech, etc. But no right is absolute. If by hate speech one is offending another person, then what about the rights of the person being offended? Why should the second person have to read nonsense in the media and fear for his/her life? Doesn't the second person have the freedom (right) to pursue his/her own religion or lifestyle without being harassed or bullied?
It's a complicated business, as I'm sure you're aware. Probably the clearest analysis of the matter is still that offered by John Stuart Mill. I suppose his main point was to do with context, meaning time and place. Generally, allow it in the right contexts and it can be shown to be nonsense by others.
For me, it's linked intimately to the notion of political correctness. This notion gets a very bad press in the Anglo countries and is widely regarded as offensive in itself. This is unfortunate. Propperly understood, it is both useful and informative. To
maintain a civil (peaceful) society we must avoid inflammatory language gratuitously aimed at provoking others. There maybe hateful things that need saying. But like Mill, I think there's a right time and place. In our day to day civil interactions we need to converse in thoughtful and, perhaps, polite ways.
What's hateful is broadly linked to what is offensive. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition it is offensive to deny the equality or liberty of individuals and identifiable groups simply because of that identity. This changes over time. ie what's a group? It is now the duty of the liberal-democratic state to manage this process (disregarding the American tendency to denigrate "liberal"). Not many states understand this now, I'm afraid. This adds to our woes very badly.
Gratuitous hate speech should be crushed by an explanatory state so reasonable citizens understand why. Gratuitous hate speech has nothing to do with an individual's right to free speech. It it the individual's abrogation of their duty of care in maintaining a civil society.
Christopher NOCK
If the hate speech does not incur in any illegality, then there's not much that can be done. If laws are made to tightening the definition of hate speech and therefore make it more likely to be judicially persecuted, then we are implementing an authoritative approach to the issue, which negates the principles of democracy itself. While the democratic state has the monopoly of violence as the legitimate power, as Weber put it, it can create laws that govern speech. But that does not confer it the moral right to do so, as it is a subversion of the democratic principle of free speech (and some would even argue that is a subversion of the natural right of freedom, that anticipates the state and therefore has no business being regulated by it, as the philosophical right argues, invoking Thomas Hobbes).
In the end, believing in democracy is believing that any person should have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how unpleasant, impolite, rude, immoral, indecent or just plain dumb. Even if we do not agree with it, whatsoever.
Could the state legislate against hate speech? Yes, indeed. And it has done so in the past in democratic countries. Most European countries that experienced fascism in any of its incarnation have restricted the use of certain symbols, words, iconographies or political association. The effectiveness of this as a detractor for right-wing extremism is still debatable to some extent. I could even argue that such laws end up driving extremist movements underground and becoming more violent and dangerous because of it.
As far as what social functions hate speech serves, while I do not subscribe Parson's theories, I do believe that hate speech may become an evolution of a larger symptom. There is a common pattern on all forms of hate speech: they tend to rise in times of turmoil, uncertainty and political mistrust and choose specific segments of society as scapegoats. It can be argued that this either results from the lack of political representation and support or from a embedded prejudice. It can even evolve to the love for hating, as Focault put it.
Is hate speech positive to society? It would not seem like it is, but then again, it is not something that can be easily measured or accounted for. Since extremism and populism tend to be closely linked, the best defence against both manifestations is still a well educated and critical society. But the rise of an ideology of over-sensitivity, that advocates the prohibition or regulation of anything that can become uncomfortable, offensive or in "bad taste" to someone else, including works of art, classic literature or media, is most disconcerting. And that is as dangerous as hate speech, just less overt.
Cheers!
I'm curious as to why you ask if hate speech serves any positive function. It's an interesting question, but it seems to be unrelated to the question of whether or not hate speech should be protected. The fact that I may think particular speech is hateful does not mean that it should not be protected or that it is "hateful" in any objective way; and, of course, that which I view as hate speech may not be seen as such by someone else. I don't think there is an objective way to define what constitutes "hate speech", so think it would be quite problematic to limit or prohibit it in a society that values free speech. I think another way to consider this is to ask if hate speech represents slander, in which case it is not protected (at least under the US Constitution). But then we have to deal with the issue of what constitutes slander.
I'm not sure saying good morning to my dogs serves any positive function in society, but there is also no reason why it should not be allowed. I do not think I would link function here to the question of whether or not hate speech should be protected. Again, I think those are different issues.
In one clear word, I say "No". But the problem, what its criteria is? to determine the hate speech and to do not mix with criticism and then exploit it to restriction the free of expression. Most of the rules or principles has exception. Therefore, we have to looking to the fair criteria to differentiate the hate speech from free expression. I think the Anglo-Saxon legal systems have useful practical juridic rules to distinguish it. We have to look into them to develop. The outcome of that researches and development may creates an international treaty for the maintenance social and international security and peace which are the main reasons behind established the United Nation.
No. Hate speech performs no good at all. It is also not the case that it is difficult to define. Hate speech singles out innocent groups of people who are the blamed for perceived slights by the perpetrator. Scapegoating in other words.
Barry, I wish the world I live in were as simple as the world you live in. It would be nice...
John Traphagan , to me, one positive function could be that hate speech serves as a precursor to insight and change. One cannot progress and grow without sounding out ideas and thoughts. This is the whole purpose of the classroom, to form educated views and opinions in a safe space. In my experience hateful views are often a product of ignorance. I wonder whether, by restricting hate speech, we would be preventing the ignorant from achieving enlightenment.
No. an easy answer is: hate speech that implies anti-democratic values or illicit doings must be prosecuted!
Carsten, that is a chilling comment. So if I say something that is interpreted as "hate speech" and someone thinks implies that I don't like democracy then I should be prosecuted? That sounds like tyranny to me. Not a society in which I want to live. Also, if you prosecute the ideas of those you find distasteful, including those that involve hate, then you are empowering them, not weakening them. You have the potential to make martyrs out of those you prosecute.
Benjamin's comment is an interesting response to this, although it was written in response to my previous comment. I would agree that if you restrict hate speech--and certainly if you prosecute those who say things that are deemed "anti-democratic"--then you shut down the possibility of learning from those ideas and understanding why they are wrong. I think Benjamin is right on the mark that hateful views are often the product of ignorance. I, too, have taught classes in which people have presented anti-democratic ideas, and even comments that some class members have viewed as racist or sexist. Provided that we are civil in our discussion, those comments open the door to thinking about what is wrong with them and getting people to learn from each other.
The idea that we prosecute anything that even "implies" anti-democratic values is among the more chilling comments I've seen in a long time. But I think it is also a very useful comment, because it opens the door to discuss reasons why we should value freedom of speech, even when we dislike or find morally repugnant what is being said, and also to discuss how we should treat each other. Who decides what is "anti-democratic"? Who decides what is being "implied"? Who decides what is illicit? Illicit means unlawful, so I guess from your perspective, Carsten, those who talk about engaging in civil disobedience should be prosecuted--even if they don't actually engage in any such actions. The problem, of course, is how we define "hate speech."
Having spent many years living in cultures other than the one into which I was born, I have found that intuition is an unreliable basis for making a decision on what is right or what is wrong. Intuition is a product of cultural frameworks, not some sort of biological sense that allows us to see the truth.
Sorry John, it is not chilling at all...
How you feel though I cannot feel for myself...
Possibly it is about defining hate speech...
Girard, I'm not convinced that intuition works. If it did, then I suspect we would have much less conflict than we do. I don't believe in objective truth, so that's not a problem for me. But I also don't think that intuition is the basis for an orderly society--I think rules are. However, in contrast to Carsten's view, I don't think the rules should be designed to shut down certain forms of free speech unless there are very clear indications that they pose a threat--like shouting "FIRE" in a movie theater that isn't actually on fire. This presents a clear threat to the lives of the people in the theater who can be hurt or killed if a stampede ensues. That's not intuition--it's logic. I agree with Carsten that the problem rests in defining hate speech. But if that's the problem, and we cannot come up with a logical and widely agreed upon definition of hate speech, then I don't think we can regulate it. And I certainly don't think we can prosecute people for simply saying something that implies anti-democratic ideas. That is chilling. It is the kind of idea that led to the thought police in Imperial Japan and that leads to fascism.
In the only positive side one could argue that hate speech in social media is an early warning system to parties and authorities or scientists or journalists about the rising social unrest and its topics in any society...
I still think it useful to define the term hate speech. Since I do not now a scientific scource I suggest en.wikipedia.org
Then we have to unterline that RG is an open science exchange space for scientists with different backgrounds knowledge, working fields and view angles (a truely inter-diciplinary approach)...
So a topic may be judged differently by sociologists, political scientists, natural scientists, economists, historians, legal experts, etc.
Just for clarification: I am biologist, economist and legal expert...
Having said all this, OK, this is the longer version ( :) , I am talkink about the anonymus hate speech in the Internet, in so called social media which is used by political parties, groups (offen radicals) and even Staates, possibly by help of Internet 'agents' or electronic devices (so called trolls) to influence the public opinion and the outcome of elections (e.g. the US or German General election and the UK brexit Referendum)...
Over here in old Germany far right wing nationalistic groups have taken control of certain topics relevant to society (e.g. migration) and are heavily influencing and attacking different thinking people and certain groups in our free society, e.g. migrants, blacks, gay men, working women, State officials like policemen, many politicians...
And often these anonymus attacks are crissing legal boundrys and when such a thing happens it is illegal and must be prosecuted....
Another field of hate speech in Germany is that open state enemies are uniting in social media and ploy for a Revolution. These so called Reichsbürger are spreading the idea that Germany does not exist AS Federal Republic of Germany but is still the Deutsche Reich...
Honestly! No kidding!
And there are said to be 15,000 nerds which folliw the idea.
They print own passports create their own territory and even banks and money...
Reichsbürger in Germany, See
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrgerbewegung
These Reichsbürger are anonymusly and openly continously attacking the German state, its officials and authorities by help of social media and hate speech. And when that is illegal (according to criminal law which offen is the case) it must be prosecuted...
That was the longer version...
What I am clearly not referring to as hate speech are normal conflicts in families, between spouses and lovers, at work... Conflicts are part of human nature and some can be solved by simple means - I also am trained as mediator...
In relation to jurisdictions which do not prohibit speech generally, it would perhaps be more apt to ask whether hate speech should be forbidden.
In case a government which styles itself as democratic prohibits hate speech of any kind, the prohibition should be specific to speech directed against particular individuals, particular groups, particular matters or particular narratives which the government considers to be acutely at risk and worthy of special legal protection.
Several European jurisdictions limit national constitutional guarantees of free speech in order legally to protect the Holocaust narrative according to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, within which 6 million victims is a definitive element.
n my view, the last mentioned approach is much to be preferred to laws which purport to prohibit hate speech in general, as in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)[1]. A government which enacts broadscale muzzling laws afterwards tends to misuse these laws in order opportunistically to silence all manner of political opponents.
[1] http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html
Carsten, I understand your point and we in the US are certainly experiencing very similar problems with far right wing hate groups--also largely pointed at immigration. My problem with prosecuting these people is that it is counter-productive. It makes them stronger, not weaker, because they can claim that they are being persecuted by the State. I certainly understand laws that prohibit hate speech directed at certain groups, but how do you decide on which groups? Also, I agree with Michael that when we have broad muzzling laws, governments will try to use them to silence any political opposition. Right now in the US, the Trump administration has been trying very hard to silence opposition--and it isn't working. The opposition is getting louder, not more quiet. Laws that silence speech that most of us find disgusting, usually also work to silence the speech of others as well. Keep in mind that someone from the right in a place like the US might see talk abortion and women's rights as hate speech. I don't think it is, but someone might interpret it that way depending on their own political views. How do we draw lines about what is and is not hate speech? If you create an atmosphere in which some people can be prosecuted for what they say (rather than what they do), then everyone may feel afraid and unwilling to say what they think. That is not a free society.
Here are a few thoughts from others who have considered this issue:
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]” ― Harry S. Truman
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ― Benjamin Franklin
Dear John, thank you for the quotes of true democrats, liberals and ambassadirs of a free world...
And let me stress and underline that we in Germany are mostly extraordinary thankful for the help and lessons received by the US, UK and to a lesser extend French help ...
But Germany weithin the EU is a grown up liberal legal stabile democracy and my point is that heute we are discussung hate speech...
A phenomenion that occurs anonymously and attacks other views and ways of living...
And when such hate speech crosses legal boundries it must be prosecuted...
On the other Hand I have to admit serveral problematic points: how to control social media? One approach in Germany and the EU is to try tio force facebook and others by help of upload filters and canellatiob obligations...
Carsten, I completely understand what you are arguing. I simply think it is wrong and that it won't work. In a free society, people can anonymously attack other views and ways of living. They cannot slander others. It has nothing to do with the US, UK, or France. It has to do with the idea that suppressing free speech, even when we don't like what others say, leads to tyranny and also that suppression of free speech by the government usually works in the opposite direction: It empowers those who say things that are hateful rather than stopping it. By allowing the expression of even abhorrent ideas (as long as they are not acted upon), you make it easy for rational people to see those ideas for what they are and to prevent them from spreading. If you clamp down on free speech (whether in social media or elsewhere), you will actually intensify hate speech, not get rid of it.
I tend to agree with John. Take drug use, for example. When we penalize drug use, we do not stop the phenomenon. People will take drugs, regardless of whether or not it is deemed legal. And by outlawing drugs, we do indeed strengthen a culture of defiance, whereby users feel empowered through their rebellion.
If we view hate speech in a similar light, the solution is not to punish the user, but to treat the underlying condition. Likely, education would be our way to root out hate speech in a systematic way.
Dear all,
some of my ideas/thoughts on a possible legal prosecuton of hate speech brought you the creeps...
Here I am sharing Germany's constitution (Grundgesetz) on the freedom of speech:
And there in art. 5 is clearly statet that there is a freedom of speech but criminal laws be the restriction:
"Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour."
URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0026
Hate speech in Germany's criminal law:
"Zwischen Meinungsfreiheit und Straftatbestand[3]
Das Grundrecht der Meinungsfreiheit wird nicht uneingeschränkt gewährt. Es findet seine Grenzen, sobald die Menschenwürde angegriffen wird. Die unter dem Begriff Hate Speech zusammengefassten Meinungsäußerungen können durchaus Straftatbestände erfüllen. Sämtliche Straftatbestände gelten auch für Kinder und Jugendliche ab 14 Jahren:
- Volksverhetzung § 130 StGB,
- Beleidigung § 185 StGB,
- Verleumdung § 187 StGB,
- Nötigung § 240 StGB,
- Bedrohung § 241 StGB,
- Öffentliche Aufforderung zu Straftaten, § 111 StGB
Einfluss von Hate Speech
Finden sich im Internet vermehrt menschenverachtende Äußerungen, kann dies in einer Spirale aus sich verstärkenden Hassbotschaften münden und dadurch ein Klima entstehen, in dem Diskriminierung und Gewalt gegen bestimmte Gruppen legitim erscheinen. Hate Speech bildet somit auch einen Nährboden für reale Übergriffe. Hassbotschaften verzerren das Meinungsbild im Netz und polarisieren. Die schweigende, unsichtbare Mehrheit wird gegenüber der lauten Minderheit, die Hass verbreitet, weniger wahrgenommen und das Politische im Strudel des Hasses denunziert und vereinfacht.
Fußnoten
1.https://no-hate-speech.de/de/wissen/2.http://www.ajs.nrw.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/160617_HateSpeech_WEB2.pdf3.http://www.ajs.nrw.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AJS-Merkblatt_Hate-Speech_Rechtsfragen.pdf "
See URL: https://www.bpb.de/252396/was-ist-hate-speech
Here are the translations of the relevant German criminal law sections:
Section 111 Public incitement to crime
(1) Whosoever publicly, in a meeting or through the dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) incites the commission of an unlawful act, shall be held liable as an abettor (section 26).
(2) If the incitement is unsuccessful the penalty shall be imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine. The penalty must not be more severe than if the incitement had been successful (subsection (1) above); section 49(1) No 2 shall apply.
Section 130 Incitement to hatred
(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace
1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioined group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
(2) Whosoever
1. with respect to written materials (section 11(3)) which incite hatred against an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault their human dignity by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming them,
(a) disseminates such written materials;
(b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;
(c) offers, supplies or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or
(d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of Nos (a) to (c) or facilitate such use by another; or
2. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in No 1 above by radio, media services, or telecommunication services
shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.
(4) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying, or justifying National Socialist rule of arbitrary force shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
(5) Subsection (2) above shall also apply to written materials (section 11(3)) of a content such as is indicated in subsections (3) and (4) above.
(6) In cases under subsection (2) above, also in conjunction with subsection (5) above, and in cases of subsections (3) and (4) above, section 86(3) shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Section 185 Insult
An insult shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the insult is committed by means of an assault, with imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine.
table of contents
Section 186 Defamation
Whosoever asserts or disseminates a fact related to another person which may defame him or negatively affect public opinion about him, shall, unless this fact can be proven to be true, be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine and, if the offence was committed publicly or through the dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)), to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine.
table of contents
Section 187 Intentional defamation
Public incitement to crime
(1) Whosoever publicly, in a meeting or through the dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) incites the commission of an unlawful act, shall be held liable as an abettor (section 26).(2) If the incitement is unsuccessful the penalty shall be imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine. The penalty must not be more severe than if the incitement had been successful (subsection (1) above); section 49(1) No 2 shall apply.
Section 240 Using threats or force to cause a person to do, suffer or omit an act
(1) Whosoever unlawfully with force or threat of serious harm causes a person to commit, suffer or omit an act shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
(2) The act shall be unlawful if the use of force or the threat of harm is deemed inappropriate for the purpose of achieving the desired outcome.
(3) The attempt shall be punishable.
(4) In especially serious cases the penalty shall be imprisonment from six months to five years. An especially serious case typically occurs if the offender
1. causes another person to engage in sexual activity;
2. causes a pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy; or
3. abuses his powers or position as a public official.
Section 241 Threatening the commission of a felony
(1) Whosoever threatens a person with the commission of a felony against him or a person close to him shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine.
(2) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly pretends to another person that the commission of a felony against him or a person close to him is imminent shall incur the same penalty.
Germany's Parliament has published two papers on this issue:
- Hass und Hetze im Strafrecht: URL: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/483584/1ccf107faf0d0f8a98de634009cf33b6/hass-und-hetze-im-strafrecht-data.pdf and
- Zum Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit in Deutschland und in den USA: URL:
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/556742/b5134f621e8813c184fce1a82cb0df9e/wd-3-052-18-pdf-data.pdf
What I am stating is: there is a broad political and public debate on this issue, there are many legal implications and criminal law is currently protecting vicitims of hate speech and hate speech is prosecuted under the above mentioned sections of the criminial law in Germany...
Thank you.
Best, Carsten
Further Links:
Literatur:
– Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz: Initiative gegen Hasskriminalität im Netz. Website ab-rufbar unter http://www.bmjv.de/WebS/NHS/DE/Home/home_node.html#initiative.
– Amadeu Antonio Stiftung: Hetze gegen Flüchtlinge in sozialen Medien, Handlungsempfehlungen, 2016, abrufbar unter: http://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/w/files/pdfs/hetze-gegen-fluechtlinge.pdf.
– Wieduwilt: Die Facebook-Erzieher. FAZ v. 23.11.2016, abrufbar unter http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/netz-wirtschaft/der-facebook-boersengang/justizminister-nehmen-facebook-bei-hasskommentaren-in-die-pflicht-14539935.html.
– Siemen: #NoHateSpeech und die Meinungsfreiheit. JuWissBlogv. 4.8.2016, abrufbar unter https://www.ju-wiss.de/67-2016/.
– Berger: Hass mit Hass bekämpfen?Telepolis v. 27.8.2015, abrufbar unter https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Hass-mit-Hass-bekaempfen-3375104.html.
– Galetzka/Krätschmer: Rassismus und Terrorismus im Netz – Strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Betreiber von sozialen Netzwerken. MMR 2016, S. 518.
– Bittmann: Wider ein Strafrecht als alltäglicher Begleiter. NStZ 2016, S. 249.
– Brugger: Hassrede, Beleidigung, Volksverhetzung. JA 2006, S. 687.
– Trips-Hebert: Hasskriminalität. Aktueller Begriff Nr. 05/12. Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages. Abrufbar unter https://www.bundestag.de/blob/192374/0d97067cfb4091dd3ccadcba87a1470c/hasskriminalitaet-data.pdf;
ders.: Volksverhetzung. Aktueller Begriff Nr. 78/09. Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundesta-ges. Abrufbar unter https://www.bundestag.de/blob/190798/a52bed78fd61296f7a3ea11e84e7c12e/volksverhet-zung-data.pdf;
ders.: Das strafbare Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen
– § 86a StGB im Spiegel der Rechtsprechung. Infobrief WD 7-3010-028/14. Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages. Abrufbar unter https://www.bundestag.de/blob/195550/4db1151061f691ac9a8be2d9b60210ac/das_strafbare_verwenden_von_kennzeichen_verfassungswidriger_organisationen-data.pdf.
Wikipedia states that the topic of hate speech is seen different in the US;
Or hate speech may be strongly regulated in other liberal states than the US..., see
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States
"Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
In academic circles, there has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.[2]"
See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#MilHarPriHatSpe
"2.3 Mill's Harm Principle and Hate Speech
Another difficult case is hate speech. Most liberal democracies have limitations on hate speech, but it is debatable whether these can be justified by the harm principle as formulated by Mill. One would have to show that such speech violated rights, directly and in the first instance. I am interested here in hate speech that does not advocate violence against a group or individual because such speech would be captured by Mill's harm principle. The Public Order Act 1986 in the U.K. does not require such a stringent barrier as the harm principle to prohibit speech. The Act states that “A person is guilty of an offence if he ...displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.”
There have been several prosecutions in the U.K. that would not have happened if the harm principle governed “absolutely the dealings of society with the individual”(Mill,1978, 68). In 2001 evangelist Harry Hammond was prosecuted for the following statements: “Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord”. For his sins he was fined 300 pounds and made to pay 395 pounds in costs. [...]" Interesting to read...
From the same Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the following sentence:
"The United States, precisely because it fits most closely with Mill's principle, is an outlier amongst liberal democracies when it comes to hate speech."
So pray be aware that there may be different views on the issue of hate speech though we are all civilized, informed and liberal democracies...
Thank you, Carsten
Allowing free speech is meaningless if it means allowing speech offending no one. Even in China one can safely speak when it offend no one. The test if a society allows free speech is when it is possible to speak freely even if what one say offend many.
“With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards. It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths.”
― Noam Chomsky, On Anarchism
"1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or"
Wouldn't that mean that vocal atheists would be subject to potential imprisonment? They certainly can incite negative attitudes about religious groups. It may not be hatred, but that seems to not be defined. The writings of Richard Dawkins has certainly incited negative attitudes about religion, perhaps even hatred among some, although I don't think inciting hatred, at least, was his intention. So would someone who writes a book claiming that Christianity is silly or even bad for humanity be imprisoned in Germany? What are "arbitrary measures"? I don't understand that.
it is very complex and difficult. Often it is not clear, where hate speech starts. Often hate speech shows important sentiments in a society, which would not be recognized, when hate speed is suppressed. Still I understand when people want to ban hate speech. Often it is extremely ugly what people say about others, other cultures, religions etc.
In my own opinion, hate speech should be discouraged in it entirety.
Every body has the freedom of speech but no country no religion allows to use hate speech.Freedom of speech is not given to use hate speech or abusive language ,it is always for the right voicing for self or others.It should be exercised for the right cause without hurting the sentiments of caste , race or religion.
No because hate speech has no positive purpose. Hate is insidious and only destroys. If hate speech is permitted then logically hate acts are also to be tollerated since they flow directly from it.
There is a clear distinction between speech which offends and hate speech defined by the legal concept of mens rea.
IF like Barry claims there were a clear distinction between hate speech and offending speech I would be fine with a law banning hate speech. But it is not the case and as soon as a banning hate speech is institute then we have not free speech but regulated speech .and I do not buy a second that this regulation is not going to infringe on free speech when it offends certain groups and the political battle move on the banning of certain speech.
I agree with Ales and Louis. Actually, I think the worst thing one can do is try to prohibit hate speech. Free speech is the basis for a free society. It also opens the opportunity for people to object to hateful ideas and to educate those who harbor such ideas. And, as Louis points out, deciding on where the line between hate speech and offensive speech is found, is quite difficult. People will be offended, but that's one of the byproducts of a free society. The right to free speech includes the right to say things that offend others. It does not include the right to say things that endanger others--thus, in the US is it not legal to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater in which there is no fire. That puts people in danger of physical harm as a result of the possibility of a stampede those in the theater cannot do much to avoid it. You can avoid speech that you don't like or you can respond to it, but you are not going to be physically harmed as a result of someone simply saying something that you find offensive.
Hate speech should never be protected. The constitution gives a person various rights including freedom of religion, speech, etc. But no right is absolute. If by hate speech one is offending another person, then what about the rights of the person being offended? Why should the second person have to read nonsense in the media and fear for his/her life? Doesn't the second person have the freedom (right) to pursue his/her own religion or lifestyle without being harassed or bullied?
How do you define "offending?" So if I say that someone's outfit is ugly, should that not be protected because the person in question is offended? Come up with an unambiguous and universal definition of hate speech and speech that is offensive, and we might have something to talk about--but I don't think that's going to happen. You have the right to not be harassed or bullied--you can walk away or decide not to listen. The problem with your argument is that defining what constitutes harassment or bullying is extremely difficult. Reading nonsense in the media is quite different from fearing for your life. You don't have to read nonsense in the media--just don't read it. If speech reaches the point of putting someone's life at risk or even causing injury, then it should not be protected.
Advocating violence or oppression is hate speech, critcising beliefs or political opinions may be offensive but should be tollerated. Threatening or encouraging violence should not.
If we are to tollerate threatening speech then we would have to allow a violent response and consider it self defence. If for instance an anti-semite threatens Jews with violence any Jew would be entitled to use violence against them in justifiable self-defense.
We do not allow incitement and conspiracy to commit crimes so it is relatively easy to identify and punish those who engage in such activity. Those who promote terrorism and glorify murder are rightly given severe criminal penalties because they are a threat to the stability of our democracies and the people within them.
It may not be easy to give a dictionary definition of hate speech but the law of evidence comes to our assistance. We can examine actus reus of the speech, mens rea and motive and subject it to thorough legal process as we would all indicted crimes. We can look to recidivist criminal behaviour to assist in this too.
If, and only if the individual charged is convicted on evidence, not definition would it be punishable under the law.
They should then be given severe custodial sentences, ideally in a supermax or on a chain gang where they can be helped to get their minds right.
Hate speech.
Its now becoming common to say this is hate speech. You are inciting violence. Or offending.
The fine line of language the use of common words which is the strength of the communicator can be construed as hate since the language and expression may vary with time and tone.
I feel the definition of hate speech should be more well defined.
I would reccommend you to look up for the enactment of the Citizen Security Law in Spain, the definitions established in that text, the way judges interpreted the text, the controversial trials consequence of it, and the overall negative impact on freedom of speech in Spain. All of that because of a loose interpretation of what hate speech would be. It is not only the problems to find a correct dictionary definition, but also who is in power to make and enact that definition as law. The political use of the term hate speech can have really bad consequences if not addressed carefully, and the wrong treatment is, in my opinion, way too likely.
Jon, very good point. Political leaders will generally be inclined to use the ability to restrict certain forms of speech to expand those restrictions in a way that shuts down any form of free speech. That is too large a cost to risk not protecting something that is as vaguely defined as hate speech. We should, however, do whatever we can as scholars and other leaders to identify and stop hate speech--my concern is that if we legislate against it or fail to protect one form of speech, we risk losing the protections of all forms of free speech. Human history is full of such instances. Freedom requires us to at times tolerate ideas and attitudes that we despise.
Hate speech is evil, it should not be encouraged or protected. It divides the society or country.
Dear All,
If one advocate violence and that some actual crimes are committed and that it is proven in a court of law that it played a significant role in that crime, then the court would find this person guilty in this crime and we do not need any hate speech law to make people responsible of their speech. As soon as a hate speech law is introduced then the power to interpret this law leave the citizens and fall down to the lawyers. We do not want the lawyers and the courts to decide if this and that speech is hatefull or not. Let the courts intervene after effective crimes and hold those responsible by the speech of these crime. Lets regulate the crimes but not the speech and get the lawyers in the loop of speech. As In ''Democracy in Amerca'', Tocqueville warned us that trading freedom for protection is a very steep slope towards totalitarian society and the biggest treat to democracy.
''In November 1922 the widely circulated periodical “Collier’s: The National Weekly” printed an article about free speech :
If you deny to anyone else the right to say what you think is wrong, it will not be long before you will lose the right to say what you think is right. Defense of the freedom of others is self-defense. ''
Regards,
- Louis
Hate speech should not be protected. It is a kind of malicious, irresponsible or ignorant exploitation of freedom of expression.
Briefly,
Radicalism ⤵️
Hate Speech ↘️
Division 🔀 ➡️
+Extremism ↘️
Nazism + Fascism ➡️
Terrorism + Inquisition ⤵️
Murder = Genocide
Ex: the Nazism Holocaust against ✡️, Slavs & others.
We don’t want frequent the past mistakes.
We don’t want to see a new fascist holocaust, or meddle ages inquisition again, please.
Do not tolerate with hate speech, please.
''In November 1922 the widely circulated periodical “Collier’s: The National Weekly” printed an article about free speech :
If you deny to anyone else the right to say what you think is wrong, it will not be long before you will lose the right to say what you think is right. Defense of the freedom of others is self-defense. ''
This is patent nonsense of course. Unbridled free expression is as dangerous as no free expression.
We ban certain types of expression because it has no positive contribution to humanity. We ban unbridled free expression because it exploits free expression to shout down others.
JS Mill did not grasp that there is no equality in free expression. Some people have a bigger platform (he did for instance) and therefore have more free speech than others.
We can't blame Mill, he was a bit of a dumbass but in his day he seemed clever. Utilitarians and Consequentialists never quite get the full picture.
Dear Barry,
You did not spend a lot of effort to elaborate why is is patent nonsense. To me it is patent common sense that mild witch hunt in the speech domain throw the crude instrument (elephant in a porcelain room) of laws degenerate very quickly like all witch hunt. That the best attack on anything good has always to be markarade as attempt to prevent bad and doing good. Look at all these students in campus putting all their efforts in preventing people of the right of the political spectrum from even have the right to speak. And you would provide them speech laws. IN not long we will have little committee everywhere deciding wether or not one can speech, which words is ok and all this political correctness stiffling expression. Some are afraid of their shawdows and need safe space and now these speech laws would extend their safe space to the whole societies, making more and more safe for their weak mind unable even to hear offending speech and only able to prevent it. This is patent nonsense to me.
Regards,
- Louis
In the United States, we have constitutionally-protected speech. However, there are still limitations. We are not protected from falsely yelling fire in a movie theater. We cannot spread lies about our fellow citizens without consequence. Hate speech is easily recognizable (most recognize it when they see it) and must be regulated especially since social media (Facebook) enables it to spread like a contagion or pandemic. Louis, I believe your fears are ill-founded and your observations do not account for technological changes. I bet you also believe that if we enhance background checks, our right to bear arms will also be on the chopping block.
Dear John,
''I bet you also believe that if we enhance background checks, our right to bear arms will also be on the chopping block.''
This type of paranoia only exist in the US and so I am immune to it as not being an american.
Regards,
- Louis
Louis, where did you come up with the idea that paranoia is restricted to the U.S.?
John
Hate speech should not be protected because it is advocating oppression and violence.
Louis
We do have committees deciding what we can and cannot say. They are called the legislature. A good example of suppression of free expression is that just about every lawmaking body in the world has banned child pornography. I presume that you do not object to that form of censorship.
Most civilised countries do not allow racist incitement either and the reason is simple. It is bad, always bad, never good or of any use to society or the individual.
We do not allow defamation in civilised societies either. Again it is bad that a person's reputation can be unjustifiably attacked.
We do not allow our citizens to commit espionage or treason even though that prevents them having full free expression.
Many countries in Europe do not allow people to wander around wearing Nazi regalia even though that denies them their rights of free expression.
Any country that allowed unbridled free expression would simply be giving weapons to bullies and the oppressor. Those who use 'free expression' to inflict pain on others are no different to those who use gratuitous violence.
The trouble with so-called free expression is that it is not free. Someone gets to pay for it.
Aleš
I think there is a clear distinction between utter disdain for a government and hating. The British government and most of those in it are contemptible, inept, self centred and arrogant but it is not an expresion of hate to think that, merely honest opinion.
If however anyone expresses real hatred it is usually in the form of incitement or threat. That is never acceptable in a democracy where the people have the option of dismissing their government in an election.
I strongly disapprove of Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party but I disapprove much more strongly of the idiot and criminal who threw milkshake all over him while he was campaigning. That was not free expression it was assault and criminal damage.
I do not accept that simply because we have laws banning hate speech that they are used to suppress genuine free expression of views. No society can give absolute licence to individuals to do just as they like. That would lead to a very unjust society indeed.
We must always understand that free speech is not egalitarian. Some have more free speech than others because they are more articulate, better educated, richer and have a broader platfrom for their expression. If we do not have some restriction then those with more free speech will abuse it to the detriment of others.
Free speech is not benign nor is it always righteous. If we give unbridled free speech to all then that means we give it to villains as well as the good.
Dear all,
dear Ales,
I think that the term "hate speech" as elaborated above is about the accusation and threatening of small groups such as gay and lesbian persons, persons of specific race or education etc.
It is not about the criticism of politicians or politics of your government in general, it is not about making critical minds criminal...
The idea of prosecuting hate speech is about protecting minorities and their views and ways of life...
Democracy in many European countries (and also in the US) is under threat by populists and their approach to the public opinion and media.
These parties are trying to spread fake news by help of social media and real media. In some countries the papers and TV Stations and Radio stations are simply bought by right wing money and installed as government spokes media (most strikingly in Poland and Hungary, possibly elswhere, e.g. Czech Republic). In Austria the Right wing government party FPÖ has tried to buy the influencial Kronen Zeitung and the goverment is currently crashing over these revelations...
Possibly we should talk and discuss about the real threats to democracy here in the first place...
OK, since I think the issue to be important, I started a new discussion, see
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Liberal_and_free_media_under_treat_by_right-wing_populists_and_their_money_Are_papers_and_TV_radio_stations_bought_Which_ones_in_which_countries
Dear Ales,
I understand that it must be seen in historical context and in view of personal experiences. I do not care too much about a right or left wing approach (in Germany there is a saying that elections are won in the middle, which is why the Labour party was successful when very conservative and A. Merkel is mimicking the Labour party since 10 years), as long is it based on sound democratic prinicples and let us agree on the point that we do never wish to get any dictatorship!
For Germany I can assure you that we have good experiences with our constitution (Grundgesetz) and the protection of minority rights.
And the European approach for the prosecution of hate speech is apparently very much different that that in the US, however I cannot honestly give an overall overview of the 28 approaches in the EU and the many surrounding countries...
It is a complex matter and I do not want any changes in the German approach...
Dear Barry,
''We do have committees deciding what we can and cannot say. They are called the legislature.''
The legislature do enact laws and it is the proper way for a society to operate, to have elected representatives making proper laws. I do not consider a proper law , a law that limit speech acts. This is for me going beyound the legitimate domain that law should restrict. I am not saying that speech act cannot be armfull and that society should not protect itself. I am saying that limiting speech throw hate laws in not the way to go. If an individual do in fact says something that lead to actual crimes, then existing criminal laws will punish this individual as being partially responsible for these crimes. So the society is already protected. To go beyound this and legislating what we can say or not based on the hypothesis that saying this or that MAY IN SOME CASES lead to criminal act, going preventive is not the way to go.
In Canada, the government has recently enact an hate law and many canadians do not like it.
Here is how the chief justice (In Canada) defines hate:
''Chief Justice Dickson for the majority explained the meaning of "hatred" in the context of the Criminal Code:
Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.[2]''
There were recently some right wing demonstration in the US. In the US these are perfectly legal but it would not be legal in Canada under our hate law and one of the demonstrator was identified by the media as a canadian and he has been prosecuted in Canada for having participated in this demonstration.
Louis
In Canada, The UK and the US we have laws permitting self defense. If a hate speaker stirs up hatred against a certain group or an individual would you consider it acceptable that the individual or a member of the target group exercise the right to self defense by beating the hell out of them to stop them being a threat?
Dear Barry,
There is no right of self-defense against hate speech that would make legal the beating the hell out of them. Beating the hell out of them is more hatefull than the hatefull speech act. It is not an express wish for bad but an actual bad. The only legitimate response to hate speech is defense speech. As long as we remain at the level of expression of our feelings and thoughts it is OK in a democratic societies. I may be totally appalled by certain group's opinions or feelings or views but even if it is the case it is perfectly OK for this group to express itself on the public place. Someone may hate for reasons he find totally legitimate and profound and sacred to see a pride parade in the center of the city but it is OK, this group should have the right to express or celebrate what they are but those totally appaled by such expression should be allowed to have their NO PRIDE DAY if they want. One may be pro immigration and make a Immigration day where all those wishing more immigration demonstrate but other against massive immigration may wish to have their NO immigration day without being prevented so by hated law because those for immigration would argue to a judge that their motivation to be against immigration are racist and thus motivated by hate. We do not want judge making such judgement , we should have freedom of expression of ALL sides and not only of the side which judge consider appropriate.
P.S. Free democratic societies need freedom of speech and obviously it is not without its risk. Allowing freedom of expression necessarily invite in all kind of armfull views to be express. Such societies are necessiraly chaotic at time. One may legitimatly reject such type of free society and desire more orderly authoritarian society and which for a rule of the wise and only let the wise express themself on the public place. Plato wished for such ideal society but it is not a free society.
Regards,
- Louis
Dear Sahar,
I perfectly agree but would you please tell me where my freedom end and where yours begin?
First, it is very difficult to define what a hate speech is. What if you made a normal statement, which still offended me? Who will decide normal or something that crossed the line? What if your genuine criticism was considered as a hate speech? What if hate speech is OK if someone belong to particular faith as oppose to others? What if someone speaks, it is considered as an offence, while others are not? Can a free speech be a hate speech? Is this not happening around the world?
Would you be able to discuss these topic without bringing race, politics, and religion or without offending someone? How will you distinguish the difference between the 'right' to criticize in a free society vs falsely get accused of a 'hate speech?' Before we talk about hate speech, what is the role of religion and free speech?
It is a very sensitive topic. Even talking about a hate speech could offend someone, as you have to take sides to defend, analyze, and tease apart. Welcome to fearful pseudo- secular demoCRAZIES!!! Sometimes I ask myself - do normal have voices?
There are clearly limits to free speech, and there is no need to fetishize free speech to the point we defend speech that serves no useful function. However, the designation of "hate speech" is regularly used to shut down legitimate debate on particular topics. Gender identity is one example that is very salient at the current time.
Noam Chomsky - Freedom of Speech for Views You Don't Like
Chomsky on the Faurisson affair and Free speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair
''In a response to a letter circa 1989–1991, Chomsky stated:
A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of History," and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies.[12]''
Libertarians, meaing people who want to take full responsability for themselves, are a small minority. Most humans beings seek the shelter of institutions: churches, military, parties, corporations etc. Most institutions have rules to be obeyed, an it is easy to point the finger to "others.
Tolerate the other does mean to to love the other. In troubled or "interesting" times radicalization offers a clear path. Democracy for me means toleration and even tolerate radical views as long as they are just that, discurse, when action is taken against the others, then we have crime.
I will take two examples: Saudi arabia financed mosques all over, the Swiss did not like to awwake late at evenings or very early in the morning by the call tot httee faithfull. Bells do not disturb them. I do understand the Swiss. Me also would not like it;, but bells sometime do bother me too.
We don't know what is right and what is wrong anymore. I think because people put their freedom before their responsabilities.
If hate speech is allowed then the consequences of the hate should fall on the speaker of it.
He who lives by the sword etc.etc!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Social Psychology