|
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, moral or political views, etc. The term covers written as well as oral communication. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society. See also hate mail.
Legal aspects In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can sanction the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot. Indeed, the term "hate speech" and its surrounding discussion (whether and to what extent speech should be regulated) is something restricted to American legal discourse. For example, the German constitution is subtly more restrictive, guaranteeing 'freedom of voicing one's opinion' and elsewhere restricts its misuse against the public peace. The German Criminal Code specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups, and revisionism, as in France, is prohibited under those grounds. Since such laws often apply only to the victimization of specific individuals, some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups. Others argue that hate speech limits the free development of political discourse and ought to be regulated, but by voluntaristic communities and not by the state. Still others claim that it is not possible to legislate a boundary between legitimate controversial speech and hate speech in such a way which is just to those with controversial political or social views. Speech codes Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical or mental health. There's an increase of prohibition of terms regarded as "hate speech" based on socio-economic class in the United States, same goes to regional slurs and comments in Europe. It may also in some contexts challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria. In addition to legal prohibition in many jurisdictions, prohibition of the use of hate speech has been written into the bylaws of some governmental and non-governmental institutions such as public universities, trade unions and other organizations (see below), though the use of speech codes in public universities in the United States is blatantly illegal. Its use is also frowned upon by many publishing houses, broadcasting organizations and newspaper groups. Differing concepts of what is offensive A central aspect of the hate speech debate is that concepts of what is acceptable and unacceptable differ, depending on eras in history and one's cultural and religious background. For example, personalised criticism of homosexuality (e.g., expressing the belief that homosexuality is "immoral" because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs) is, to some, a valid expression of one's values; to others, however, it is an expression of homophobia and is therefore homophobic hate speech. Prohibition in such cases is seen by some as an interference in their rights to express their beliefs. To others, these expressions generate harmful attitudes that potentially cause discrimination. Furthermore, words which once "embodied" negative hate speech connotations, such as 'queer' or 'faggot' against homosexuals, 'nigger' against people of African origin, have themselves been "reclaimed" by their respective communities, who attached more positive meanings to the words, so undermining their value to those who wish to use them in a negative sense. Significations differ following the context, as Judith Butler argues. Concepts of what qualifies as hate speech broadened in the late twentieth century to include certain views expressed from an ideological standpoint. For instance, some feminists consider jokes about women or lesbians to be hate speech. Recently, the Canadian government added sexual orientation to the list of relevant characteristics eligible for protection from hate speech. Not everyone accepts that there is a difference between classic forms of hate speech, which were incitements to hatred or even to physical harm, and the use of language that merely shows disrespect. Some discussions between politically right wing and left wing can be viewed as hateful, even though the language used by both sides is not normally classified as hate speech. However, some argue that such comments demean and undermine the individuals and so should qualify as hate speech. Attitudes towards controlling hate speech cannot be reliably correlated with the traditional political spectrum. In the United States, there is a general consensus that free speech values take precedence over limiting the harm caused by verbal insult. At the same time, many conservatives believe verbally expressed "discrimination" against religions such as blasphemy, or sometimes patriotically incorrect speech which opposes the national interest, should be condemned, while liberals feel the same way about verbal "discrimination" against identity-related personal characteristics, such as homosexuality. Hate speech codes in academia Many schools and universities have speech codes that prohibit hate speech. Hate speech codes are rules intended to ensure an atmosphere free from harassment and intimidation, conducive to a learning environment. Many academics have criticised these policies, arguing they are an impediment for free and uncensored discussion on controversial topics. Moreover, it is argued that the very concept of harassment is often misused and frequently cheapened, interpreting criticism (of a faith, opinion, or lifestyle) as something traumatic and harmful. Free speech advocates maintain that debate is essential to searching for the truth, and hate speech codes interfere with this mandate by silencing discussion from the very start (becoming censorship). They maintain that "harassment" should only be interpreted as a direct personal threat. Opponents of hate speech codes argue that students should be confronted with perspectives they can find repulsive, as it will help strengthen their own arguments and ultimately achieve a more sturdy, well-rounded understanding of the issue. One organization active in opposing campus speech codes is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE. See also | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |