People protest hate speech on February 1, 2017, in Berkeley, California. Photo by: AP Photo/Ben Margot

Hate speech is speech or expression that belittles a person or persons because they belong (even allegedly) to a certain social group. That group may have attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability and others.

Typical hate speech involves labels and slurs, or statements that promote malicious stereotypes. Hate speech is often intended to incite hatred or violence against a group.

Hate speech can also include unspoken pictures and symbols. For example, the Nazi swastika and the Confederate battle flag (of the Confederate States of America) have been considered hate speech by many people and groups.

Critics of hate speech argue that it causes psychological harm to its victims, and physical harm when it incites violence. They also say that it makes its victims less equal in society. That is particularly true, they claim, because the social groups that are commonly the targets of hate speech have historically suffered from social marginalization and oppression. Hate speech therefore poses a challenge for modern liberal societies, which are committed to both freedom of expression and social equality. Thus, there is an ongoing debate in those societies over whether and how hate speech should be regulated or censored.

Censorship Is Worse Than Hate Speech

In the idea of what traditional liberal, democratic societies should be, all speech is typically allowed under the ideal of "freedom of expression." That often includes hate speech. A person may be disgusted by hate speech, but they may also find it worse to allow their government to censor the words of a citizen, even if those words are bigoted or hateful. Censorship, they might say, would lead to more censorship by a government. It could end up that legitimate but unpopular expression would be disallowed, such as criticism of government. This would be unthinkable, as criticism of government is key to the political health of a liberal democracy.

They argue that the best way to fight hate speech is to point out how wrong and false it is as an idea. In that liberal society, there's an "open exchange of ideas." All ideas, no matter what they are, should be discussed and debated, and society comes to an agreement about what ideas it wants or doesn't want.

Some people are for censorship of hate speech. They typically argue against the traditional liberal position, which says that all people and groups are equal in society. The "open exchange of ideas" neglects the fact that there are marginalized groups who are especially vulnerable to the evils of hate speech.

Hate Speech Silences Its Victims

Hate speech, they argue, is not just the "free expression of ideas;" it effectively diminishes its victims' standing in society. When aimed at historically oppressed minorities, hate speech is not just insulting � it also continues the oppression of these minorities. It causes the victims, the perpetrators and society at large to internalize the hateful messages and act on that hate. Victims of hate speech cannot enter the �open marketplace of ideas� as equal participants to defend themselves. For them, hate speech, in addition to a broader system of inequality and unjust discrimination that burdens the victims, effectively silences them.

The court system of the United States has, on the basis of the First Amendment and its principle of freedom of speech, generally ruled against attempts to censor hate speech. The only exceptions are if hate speech is being used to incite immediate harm to a person or group, or if someone uses "fighting words" when standing right in front of them.

Other liberal democracies such as France, Germany, Canada and New Zealand have laws designed to lessen hate speech. Such laws have proliferated since World War II.

]]>