Hate speech: what is it exactly? Merriam Webster defines hate speech as “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.”
I chose this definition because it seems to be what the term has evolved into in the past decade. I think most people can agree on it. This is the definition I am going to be using to define hate speech throughout this article.
*DISCLAIMER* I obviously don’t support or morally condone the use of hate speech.
Image via TucsonSentinel
It’s easy to see why hate speech is so reviled in our society, as it should be. More and more people are coming out against “hate speech” as if the vast majority of people might think that hate speech is a good thing. Many people surprisingly support “hate speech” being made illegal, suggesting we should pass laws against it. The problem with this is that many times in the past, hate speech has been attributed to things that are not actually hate speech. I do not defend actual hate speech. I do, however, defend free speech. It is when non-hate speech is dishonestly and wrongly labeled as hate speech out of ignorance that I have a problem with the idea of enforcing laws. There are few ways of determining what is and is not hate speech, and almost all are ineffective.
Enforcing the law based on language used.
Are we going to base it on the words someone says in a particular order? If so, who are we going to target? For example:
If a person of Ethnicity A calls a person of Ethnicity B an insensitive name regarding their race, it would be labeled racist, and could even be labeled as hate speech. However, if a person of Ethnicity B calls another person of Ethnicity B that same name, it is obviously neither of those things. Why? Because they are of the same ethnicity and are obviously not hating on the ethnicity to which they both belong.
So, what do we do in the situation where hate speech is determined based on the literal words spoken? If they both said the same thing, does that mean both have to be punished, or do the rules only apply when one group of people breaks them? In this situation, we obviously cannot punish the person of Ethnicity B because of the clear lack of hateful intentions. We could punish person of Ethnicity A, but that wouldn’t be fair because they literally uttered the same words as person of Ethnicity B. This law would leave context unconsidered. We cannot enforce this law based on literal words that people say. It’s easy to see how that would not work out.
Enforcing the law based on how the language makes the listener feel.
We should make laws to focus on issues that can be falsified in objective reality, not focused on how words might make someone feel. If we define hate speech based on how the speech made someone feel, then we will be prosecuting people who will already be guilty upon accusation. There would be no need for an investigation, because one cannot possibly provide compelling objective evidence that the person’s feelings were not violated. Claims and accusations of hate speech are most times unfalsifiable. There is no objective evidence that can be observed to go against their word. Can we fairly prosecute somebody based on the word of another? No. That lesson should’ve been learned in 1692 during the Salem Witch Trials.
Image via Wikipedia
The problem lies with how we are identifying hate speech. How will we identify it, and how can we guarantee that this will not become something that people will conveniently use to silence those who disagree with them? I honestly don’t doubt that happening (The left hasn’t taken too kindly to opposition in recent years).
The day we start banning speech that we don’t like is the day when freedom of expression dies. Freedom of expression does not mean “freedom of expression, unless we disagree with you.” Freedom of expression means freedom of expression -meaning for everybody. Obviously, there are exceptions; threats and speech that poses a clear and present danger are not protected under the First Amendment. So where is the line drawn for speech that is deemed “hate speech”? Right now, the bar is virtually nonexistent. It will be a sad day in America when people are locked up or given a fine because they said the wrong thing to the wrong person.
The subjectivity of language is why we cannot fairly prosecute people simply for the words they speak. That is why what people deem as “hate speech” is still protected under the first amendment. Who is anyone (especially the government) to say they know what you meant by your words better than yourself? That’s why the Constitution limits the government’s power to regulate speech.