Hate Speech: From Social Norms To Legal Boundaries

Hate speech is a highly contentious issue, with no universally accepted definition. Generally, it is understood as any form of expression that intends to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a person or group based on characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation. While hate speech is not a legal term in the United States, and is protected by the First Amendment, other countries have implemented varying laws and regulations to address it. The absence of a consistent definition and the subjectivity of what constitutes hate make it challenging to draw a clear line between hate speech and protected speech, underscoring the complexities in legislating against it.

Hate speech in the US is protected by the First Amendment

Hate speech is a highly subjective term with no single, consistent definition. While it is generally understood as speech that expresses hatred towards a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, or sexual orientation, the specific characteristics that constitute hate are open to interpretation.

In the United States, hate speech is largely protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The First Amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Over the years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this right, ruling that the government cannot lawfully censor, punish, or unduly burden individuals or entities engaging in hate speech.

The protection of hate speech under the First Amendment stems from the belief that it is not the government's role to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they may find unwelcome or offensive. Instead, the government's role is to broadly protect freedom of speech, even when it veers into offensive or hateful territory, to encourage robust debate and the expression of countervailing opinions. This protection extends to public universities, which are bound by the First Amendment and must adhere to court rulings that uphold the freedom of expression.

While hate speech is generally protected, there are exceptions. The Supreme Court has identified narrow categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, including unlawful incitement, true threats, intimidation, or discriminatory harassment. For example, speech that constitutes a genuine threat, incites imminent lawless action, or amounts to discriminatory harassment can be punished.

The line between protected and unprotected speech is often blurry, and determining what constitutes hate speech can be challenging. Ultimately, the First Amendment protects even hurtful and offensive speech to ensure that public debate and democratic dialogue are not stifled.

Hate speech laws vary from country to country

In the US, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". However, there are categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group.

Other countries, like Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have hate speech laws that restrict certain types of expression. For example, in Canada, advocating genocide against any "identifiable group" is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code, with a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. Similarly, Germany has laws against Volksverhetzung ("incitement to hatred"), which can lead to up to five years' imprisonment.

The European Union's Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA also requires member states to criminalize hate crimes and speech, although the implementation and interpretation of this framework vary by state.

The laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. The laws meant to protect public order have a higher threshold for violation and are not often enforced, while those intended to protect human dignity have a lower threshold and are more frequently enforced.

While there is ongoing debate about the effectiveness and ethical implications of hate speech laws, the fact remains that their presence and enforcement vary significantly from country to country.

Hate speech is a prerequisite for mass atrocities

Hate speech has been a precursor to mass atrocities and genocide throughout history. One of the most well-known examples is the Holocaust, where the Nazi regime used state-controlled media to disseminate antisemitic and racist propaganda, normalizing atrocity crimes and leading to the persecution and annihilation of millions of Jewish people. More recently, in 1994, decades of hate speech against the Tutsi minority in Rwanda, including propaganda broadcast by the Radio Libre des Mille Collines, incited the Hutu majority to commit genocide, resulting in the systematic killing of over one million people in less than three months.

Social media platforms have become a new tool for spreading hate speech and inciting violence. In Myanmar, the military systematically utilized Facebook to disseminate propaganda, false news, and inflammatory posts targeting the Rohingya Muslim minority. This led to widespread human rights violations, including killing, rape, torture, and forced displacement. Similarly, in Cambodia during the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge regime used intense propaganda to mobilize the rural population, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians.

While the internet and social media have enabled the spread of hate speech, they have also provided opportunities for early detection and prevention. Dr. Simon Adams, in his speech at the International Conference on Social Media in 2020, emphasized the need for technology and social media companies to employ experts to tackle hate speech on their platforms. He also highlighted the role of governments and multilateral bodies in addressing warning signs and preventing hate speech and incitement online.

Despite the challenges posed by the evolving nature of hate speech, it is crucial to recognize its potential consequences. Hate speech creates an environment conducive to mass atrocities by marginalizing and dehumanizing certain groups, making them vulnerable to violence and persecution. Therefore, addressing hate speech is essential to prevent future atrocities and protect the human rights of all individuals.

Hate speech laws are criticised for being arbitrary

The inconsistent treatment of racist speech also highlights the subjective nature of hate speech laws. For example, in the UK, "paraglider girls" who paraded around with images of Hamas stuck to their backs were given a slap on the wrist, while far-right activist Sam Melia was sent to prison for producing anti-Semitic stickers. This two-tier speech policing is an inevitable consequence of having speech policing in the first place and is shaped by the prejudices and blind spots of the police and judiciary.

Hate speech laws are also criticised for being selectively applied and enforced by those in power. For instance, in the United States, what is usually labelled as "hate speech" is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. However, in practice, hate speech laws are employed at the discretion of those in power, targeting speech that those in power do not like. This selective application of hate speech laws can be seen in the case of Sarah Jeong, a former editorial writer for the New York Times, who made hateful tweets about white people but was not banned from Twitter, unlike The Babylon Bee, a Christian satire outlet that was suspended for naming a transgender woman "Man of the Year".

Furthermore, the lack of a single, consistent definition of hate speech contributes to the perception of arbitrariness. While hate speech is generally understood as public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on certain characteristics, the specific characteristics that are protected vary from country to country. For example, while most countries include race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation as protected characteristics, other characteristics such as disability, nationality, or ethnic origin may or may not be included, leading to inconsistencies in the enforcement of hate speech laws.

Finally, critics argue that hate speech laws can be counterproductive, empowering politicised censors, driving bigots underground, and creating an illusion of widespread hatred that may fuel more intolerance.

Hate speech laws are criticised for being difficult to define

In the United States, for example, there is no legal definition of "hate speech" under US law, although it is generally understood to refer to any form of expression that intends to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or class of persons based on certain characteristics. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other Western countries is protected speech under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. This lack of a clear definition makes it challenging to enforce hate speech laws consistently and fairly.

The subjective nature of hate speech also contributes to the difficulty in defining it. What one person may consider hateful, another may not. This subjectivity can lead to inconsistencies in how hate speech laws are applied, as seen in the case of the "paraglider girls" and far-right activist Sam Melia in the UK, where the former received a slap on the wrist while the latter was sent to prison for producing anti-Semitic material.

Furthermore, critics argue that hate speech laws are arbitrary, as they only protect certain categories of people and not others. Extending these laws to cover all possible categories, however, would likely lead to totalitarian control over speech, which is unacceptable in a democratic society.

The lack of a clear and consistent definition of hate speech makes it challenging to enforce laws against it effectively and raises concerns about the potential for arbitrary or selective enforcement. As a result, some argue for a more inclusive definition of hate speech that covers all forms of expression, regardless of the target or intent.

Frequently asked questions