Hate Speech

Is hate speech free speech? To adequately answer that question, if at all possible, we should get our definitions straight first, and ask what "free speech" and "hate speech" are. The goal here is to gradually make clear why not all speech can be tolerated in my opinion, and how indiscriminately allowing all speech so can pose a threat to free speech itself.

_{Image by Marco Verch - source: Flickr}

The ability for a democracy to kill itself is contained in its nature; we can vote for a dictator who will use his power to hang on to that power as long as possible. Most western constitutions are not set in stone as far as I know; it's a long process, but constitutions can be changed, and so can the safeguards contained therein. Sometimes it looks like the end of democracy comes quick, like in Nazi Germany, but the truth is that Hitler's rise to power was preceded by a long process in which hate speech directed against certain parts of the population was gradually normalized. This specific flavor of fascism cannibalized the German democracy by using its strength (and weakness) against itself. And the first step was to slowly stretch the definition of acceptable speech where needed, which was all speech related to Jews, Gypsies and other identified "parasites". But mainly Jews.

We are in a similar situation now, where free speech is a hotly debated topic, for all kinds of reasons. And it is a complex topic, no doubt; I struggle with it myself all the time... So, let's first establish a definition for free speech:

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
_{source: Wikipedia}

This is, more or less, the fundamentalist interpretation of free speech; everyone should be able to say whatever they want without fear of any sanction. This opinion is widely spread among anarchists and libertarians who's ideologies are centered around individual freedoms of every kind. I'm generalizing of course, but most of them draw the line at physical violence which leaves them with the principle: as long as my freedom doesn't hurt you, I should be left alone, or the famous "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins." I'm sure you've heard somewhere that yelling "BOMB!!" in a packed cinema is a good example of speech that can't be tolerated, and should be sanctioned, in principle. Especially when people get harmed in the ensuing panic, this is clear and we even get the approval of many libertarians and other freedom loving individuals. Heck, I consider myself a freedom loving individual...

There are restrictions to what we can say without having to answer for the consequences of the words we speak. "BOMB!!" isn't hate speech though;

Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
_{source: Wikipedia}

Hate speech isn't legislated in all countries, America being the best known example, and where it is, it's tailored to the specific culture and and socioeconomic environment of each individual country; there's a list with countries and a brief explanation of how they deal with hate speech in the Wikipedia article, if you're interested. Here's the entry for the United States of America:

The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.
_{source: Wikipedia}

So, should hate speech be free speech? This is no simple question and you can see how limiting free speech brings with it many challenges. For example, I want a comedian to be allowed to make remarks that could be considered to be racist, given the right context. It could be used for some witty critique on society, or an enactment of racial slurs being used by members of the group themselves, to name but a few examples. It's the intent and the context that really matter here. Personally I draw the line at the point where we get into the realm of inciting hatred or fear, and I know it's hard to locate where that line should be drawn exactly, which is why we have in most western countries, a justice system that evaluates each case individually. But even then, it's not simple. Let me share with you a way to, theoretically, explore the landscape of free speech in search of the line.

When someone holds a gun to your head, and intends to shoot, I think we'll all agree that you are justified to react with physical violence. If you can. Now let's make it a little less obvious, and say that you received reliable information (emphasis on "reliable") that someone is going to kill you, and it's imminent, there's no time to call the police. I think we'll all agree, or most at least, that in this case you're also justified to take whatever action you deem necessary to prevent your demise. Now, one step further; let's say that someone instructs someone else to go over to your place and kill you. The person that wants you dead only used his or her free speech, but here also, I think we'll agree that this person should be stopped, or at the very least punished, hopefully in time to prevent the murder.

Now let's say that someone organizes a rally and gives a speech that advocates for legislation that would cause harm to immigrants. I think you can see how you can take this process further and maybe realize that inciting hatred or fear for certain demographics can cause real harm to them. Now bring money into the mix; certain powerful individuals and institutions can provide platforms for people who will spread the word they want to have spread, potentially accellerating the process of dehumanizing targeted groups. And it's always in that order: first we tolerate hate speech by slowly stretching what's tolerable, and only then we tolerate legislative- and eventually also violent action. Take this process even further and you can see how democracy's freedoms can lead to democracy's demise. How the "marketplace of ideas" can fail like any other market when left unchecked. I believe we should not tolerate the intolerable.

That's not to say that regulation is the end of it, and even with regulation we'll probably never have a perfectly harmonious, peace loving society. It's to say that free speech is one of the components, a major one at that, we have to carefully consider and reconsider in our ultimate goal of reducing as much harm as possible, for as much people as possible. Or at least I hope we can agree on that last part ;-) A lot of that starts with common decency. Sorry for not giving any real answers here but I think this is something everyone needs to work out for themselves, and then we need to transform our democracies into working democracies, and then we need to trust that democracy to do "the right thing." There's a long road ahead of us indeed, let's try and make it a fun trip ;-)

_{Bret Stephens, Bedbugs, And The Illusion of Civility - SOME MORE NEWS}

---

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!

Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>	Origins Of Wealth
The Economy Is Doing Great!!	A Heap Of Sand
Recognizing Fascism	Stefan's Evil Women
(Soy) Boys Don't Cry	The End Is Nye!!

Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!

I am a proud helpinaut! @Helpie is looking for new members! Helpie has been growing nicely and we are always on the lookout for new valuable members. We are very supportive and community oriented. If you would like to be scouted for @helpie , please drop a comment on THIS POST or contact @paintingangels on discord at paintingangels(serena)#3668.

Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:

Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO



@helpie is a WITNESS now! So please help @helpie help you by voting for us here!