hate speech vs. freedom of expression
February 6, 2006 by thinking girl
I had to submit a paper to my human rights class this week. The topic was whether or not we should tolerate hate speech. I'm posting the paper here - it's not too long - and I am interested to hear what you guys might think about the topic. A bit of context for any american readers: in Canada, we have legislation under the criminal code prohibiting hate speech against identifiable groups. I wrote in the Canadian context, but I know that the US does not have such laws - in fact, only a handful of countries do: Canada, UK, and Australia (most European countries have laws against the jewish holocaust denial). The paper was restricted to a certain length, so unfortunately I couldn't go into as much detail as I might have liked in outlining arguments and counter-arguments, but I'd love to hear opinions. Several classmates submitted papers supporting freedom of expression, so that contingent was also represented in our discussion. My paper is from a strong social justice position.
HATERS KEEP ON HATING AND THE RICH KEEP GETTING RICHER:
Why Hate Speech Should Not Be Tolerated In a Free and Democratic Society
Hate speech is defined as “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.”[i] There has been much controversy regarding hate speech and laws that prohibit hate speech. This controversy arises first and foremost because of its conflict with the well-guarded right to freedom of expression, which secures each person the right to express ideas and opinions without governmental interference. In this paper, I will advance the view that the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute. I will further argue that expressions of hate cause real harm to groups depicted in such negative ways, and that the rights of marginalized groups not to be spoken about or otherwise depicted in demeaning and derogatory ways outweigh any claim to freedom of expression. Finally, I will argue that marginalized groups are owed societal protection from hate speech.
Identifiable Groups and the Criminal Code of Canada
In the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), anyone who promotes genocide, incites hatred of an identifiable group in a public place, or promotes hatred is guilty of a criminal offence and will be imprisoned for two to five years.[ii] The CCC states that “In th[ese] section[s], “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”[iii] Note that this definition excludes gender, disability, and economic status. Also, identifiable groups are recognized by Section 15 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF): “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”[iv] (Note that this list excludes economic status and sexual orientation.) It appears from these documents that the Canadian government recognizes that individual identity is based on group membership, and the rights of individuals can be secured through the protection of groups.
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is considered a fundamental political freedom, and is zealously guarded in Western society. Section 2b of the CCRF says that every Canadian has the fundamental right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”[v] This clause is meant to protect citizens of Canada from censorship, defined here as the suppressing of opinions expressed through written word, theatrical performance, or artistic media, usually by the government.
There is a real problem in identifying what kind of act speech is. Stanley Fish says: “If [freedom of speech] is to make any sense… speech must be declared not to be a species of action, or to be a special form of action lacking the aspects of action that cause it to be the object of regulation.”[vi] On this view, speech holds no power to harm anyone. This is a very narrow conception both of what can cause harm, and of what constitutes harm. By discounting emotional and psychological pain from the realm of harm, physical pain is constructed as the only legitimate form of harm. This view is not realistic: we all know that it hurts to be the subject of a cruel comment, and verbal abuse is recognized as harm. Speech certainly is an action that can cause harm. Fish agrees: “[S]peech always seems to be crossing the line into action, where it becomes, at least potentially, consequential.”[vii] Therefore, if speech can cause harm, then speech must be considered a type of action requiring regulation.
Speech and Context
No speech act occurs outside of a particular context. Stanley Fish says: “arguments [that support freedom of speech] only get their purchase by first imagining speech as occurring in no context whatsoever, and then stripping particular speech acts of the properties conferred on them by contexts.”[viii] Allow me to break this statement down. Those who defend freedom of expression first assume that speech happens in a vacuum, free from situational context. The idea is that when a person speaks, she speaks her own ideas, and that should not be controlled. She should be free to speak her mind without worrying what others will think about it. This is erroneous on two counts: first, she does not speak from a place that is context-free. Every life has its own context, and every speaker brings that context to her speech. Second, in order for speech to have meaning, someone has to hear it. The person who listens to speech is also affected by the context of his life. The second part of Fish’s statement refers to what happens when speech enters into context. I say a sentence, and because of the context in which I say it, or the context in which someone hears it, meaning attaches to the sentence. Proponents of freedom of expression would try to strip away that meaning. This argument is somewhat confused: it argues that context is unwittingly conferred onto an act of speech, rather than considering that context motivates that act.
Freedom from Harm
Freedom is a delicate balance. A society can only support an individual’s rights so long as that individual does not infringe on the rights of another. In regards to hate speech, it is hard to understand why one person’s (or group’s) right to freedom of expression should trump the right of a group not to have hateful things said about them. Why should the rights of the haters be held above those of the victims of hate speech? Societies that tolerate hate speech institutionalize that form of violence. When an individual is the subject of “hate” speech, he or she has the right to press criminal charges against the speaker(s) on the basis of slander/defamation of character. When a group is the subject of hate speech, it seems defenders of Section 2b of the CCRF would tell members of that group to just get over the slanderous comments, because the speaker(s) right to free expression is paramount.
Stephen L. Newman, arguing for freedom of expression, says that “[h]ate speech, by its very nature, is threatening, and all victims of hate speech have reason to fear the potential for violence that it represents.”[ix] He argues that special consideration for disadvantaged social groups is untenable, and that those who defend legislation prohibiting hate speech “serve only to explain the heightened sensitivity of historically oppressed groups to continuing expressions of prejudice.”[x] I find this statement to be highly contentious and dismissive of the real concerns of marginalized groups. It is true that hate speech can target both disadvantaged and privileged groups in society, and individuals deserve protection from these threats. However, words of hatred spoken against a person who is socially privileged does not serve to support systems of oppression that already exist against them. Socially privileged groups are not in the same socio-political/economic position as disadvantaged groups: the relation of power that constitutes oppression serves to advance socially privileged groups while simultaneously squashing socially disadvantaged groups. Those who are harmed by such oppression deserve protection and support as society works to undo and disentangle the interlocking systems that have created situations in which disadvantaged people are trapped between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Western society has been built on the backs of disadvantaged people, and they are still paying the price today because of pervasive beliefs involved in racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc. Hate speech, when aimed at the socially privileged, is as harmful as a dent in a suit of armour. For a disadvantaged group, it is a kick in the teeth while they’re already down.
Conclusion
Why does a person commit an act of hate speech? The bottom line is, that person has come into contact with information that has led them to believe something negative about a group or groups of people, and for whatever reason, they feel compelled to express that view. The underlying belief is supported by systems of oppression in society that serve to exploit and demoralize particular groups of people, and serve to privilege other groups. Oppression is about relations of power between groups, and hate speech has a twofold intent: to demoralize and degrade a person or people based on their membership in an identifiable social group, and to impart more power and privilege to the speaker and his/her group.
In a perfect world, if a person or group of people wished to express their prejudices regarding another group (or groups) of people to society at large, that expression would not matter. The only harms that would come about from such an expression would be the public humiliation, chastisement, and exclusion of the person or group expressing those views by the rest of society. However, ours is not a perfect world. Ours is a world rife with interlocking systems of oppression that serve to harm groups of people based on criteria such as gender, sexuality, disability status, economic status, race, ethnicity, and religion. These systems of oppression are only fuelled by such expressions of intolerance and non-acceptance characterized by hate speech. Society owes protection to these disadvantaged groups in the form of legislation prohibiting hate speech.
NOTES
[i] Wikipedia, “Hate Speech”. Accessed February 2, 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech>
[ii] Criminal Code of Canada, Sections 318 and 319. Accessed February 3, 2006 at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/165505.html#rid-165543>
[iii] Ibid
[iv] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule B, Constitution Act 1982. Section 15(1). Department of Justice web site, accessed February 2, 2006 at http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/>
[v] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule B, Constitution Act 1982. Section 2b. Department of Justice web site, accessed February 2, 2006 at http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/>
[vi] Fish, Stanley. “There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing Too”, pp 241 in Political Philosophy: Classic & Contemporary Readings (Pojman, L., ed) © 2002: McGraw-Hill
[vii] Ibid, pp 241
[viii] Ibid, pp 243
[ix] Newman, Stephen L. “What Not to Do About Hate Speech: An Argument Against Censorship”, pp 209 in Canadian Political Philosophy
[x] Ibid, pp 209 (Beiner, R. and Norman, W., ed). © 2001: Oxford University Press
*please note: this paper may not be used in full or in part in any form without the express permission of the author*
first of all, i think your paper is good and well-reasoned…
that being said, i really am very reluctant to limit speech…as speech *is* different than actions…
i have spent a lot of time discussing this topc on other blogs - re: the danish cartoons depicting muhammed
Hi Mike,
thanks for your comments! I’ve also been following the political cartoon debacle going on right now. I think it’s actually a good example of how speech crosses over into action: what was represented, and what has subsequently been said by Muslim groups in response, is certainly what I would call “fighting words.”
One of the articles I referenced, by Stanley Fish, had an interesting angle. He talked about freedom of speech as being a nonsensical term in general, because without some limitations, speech would have no meaning, so speech really isn’t free at all. We are bound by limitations on speech because we want to communicate effectively with other people - we want them to understand us and our ideas. Therefore, we restrict our speech in terms of sentence structure etc.
It was an interesting argument, but not as strong as his other point, which was that freedom of speech really isn’t a RIGHT - in terms of being something that we as humans naturally have and the government is obliged to uphold. Freedom of speech is a political achievement, and its purpose is to ensure that citizens of a democracy have the ability to challenge its government and other citizens in order to build a more democratic state representative of more sections of society.
This is, I think, a very strong argument. Just as the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) in the US is completely mangled by modern interpreters who take it out of context, the 1st Amendment (freedom of conscience, expression, etc) has been taken out of its original context and applied more braodly to justify actions that are offensive to some people (unfortunately, usually marginalized groups).
In any case, I think it’s an interesting topic. Thanks for participating!
Interesting discussion.
I have to disagree with Fisher’s view of “freedom of speech” as a a nonsensical term. “without some limitations, speech would have no meaning (…
Therefore, we restrict our speech in terms of sentence structure etc.” It’s all in the definition of speech, isn’t it. Without sentence structure, etc., an utterance is not speech, just words. Without meaning, it is just sounds. (that’s the linguist in me talking). Also, to me, speech in itself is an action; it can have beneficial or hurtful consequence as well as other actions.
It’s also fun to have a Canadian perspective, especially since there is actually a big difference between the CCRF and the U.S. First Amendment. Whereas the latter states that “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech,” the former is “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”
(Also, a small point, when you say that the CCRF list “excludes economic status and sexual orientation”, it has to be noted that this list is not exhaustive, as the words “in particular” indicate.)
freedom of speech is not nonsensical - calling freedom of speech nonsensical is nonsensical…this is one of those statements that superficially seems profound, but is pretty empty…
freedom of speech not a right - hmmm - not sure about that either…i suppose “rights” can be defined in a philosophical sense or in a legal sense…how can he say that freedom of speech is something humans don’t have naturally - GOVERNMENTS are things that humans don’t have naturally - go back to, say, the cavemen times and i’m guessing they said pretty much what they felt like…it’s only when the powerful imposed their will over the weak that “natural” rights were suppressed…
and to limit freedom of speech to criticizing the government - well, at least in the USA, that narrow view does not seem to be the case. those that wrote the constitution were pretty smart - they *could* have worded the first ammendment to say that, had they intended that - but they didn’t - and in practice the law is not interpreted in that narrow sense…
as far as the cartoon controversy - to imply that the cartoons were “fighting words” seems to justify the violent response… it was the reaction to the cartoons that was violent - not the cartoons themselves. violence is one possible reaction to speech one disagrees with. there are plenty of other reactions, that, in fact many moslems have taken - to blame the speech (or cartoons) for the violence - and to suggest banning them on this basis, seems to me to put the blame on the wrong place….
face it - almost anything but the blandest speech *might* offend someone . the oscar nominated film - brokeback mountain -probably deeply offends some on the right - the point is, when the government starts in on the business of banning or restricting speech, it becomes a matter of whose values will be used in categorizing offensive vs. non-offensive speech - frankly, that’s not something i want to relinquish to the govt…
obviously, there are exceptions - libel, certain kinds of despicable obscenity - but we must be very careful in adding to the exceptions - otherwise it’s apt to snowball
Marc Andre,
yes, you’re right about the CCRF. Although the language isn’t explicit, groups that aren’t included have been extrapolated in legal forums and precendents have been created, so it’s not a problem to apply the principles in the CCRF to groups not specifically named. I agree, a Canadian prespective is interesting, since so much of the work around freedom of speech happens in a US context, and of course, they don’t bother to include Canadian laws or examples.
Mike,
I agree that Fish’s point about freedom of speech being a meaningless term because we need restrictions in order to make sense of communicating is somewhat impractical and perhaps not so useful. I thought it an interesting point, from a linguistic point of view, but not one that everyone will be able to find helpful.
In terms of freedom of speech being a right, I have to retain my position. Rights are based on natural law theory - basically the theory, developed by philosophers such as St Thomas Aquinas, that humans have inherent, or natural, rights based on laws of nature. Natural rights are the basis of human rights, for example. Rights are both positive - I am entitled to a thing, such as voting, and society has a duty to provide it for me - and negative - usually non-interference. Rights imply duties: if I have a right, it is your duty to support me in that right. At best, freedoms are negative rights, and negative rights are largely political freedoms. Freedom of speech would be a negative right, and I think a secondary one: it does not involve security of the person. I hope that clarifies the idea of Natural rights a bit.
yes, the fact that the constitution is interpreted in such a broad way is exactly my point, and I think, often a problem. I beg to differ that the GUYS (white privileged christian men) who wrote the amendments were pretty smart guys and that is the end of the story. Those men wrote in a particular context at a particular point in history. They could not have foreseen the type of abuses, misinterpretations, manipulations, etc. of their words. They also could not have foreseen the shift in politics and social theory that has resulted from political movements such as civil rights, feminism, critical race theory, and the globalization of our world by the west that has led to a completely out of whack balance of power in global politics.
As for those cartoons, I think they were a clear incitement and provocation of at the least anger on the part of Muslims worldwide. The basic truth is that the west has ideals, such as freedom of speech, that the rest of the world does not understand or share, and we simply don’t understand why these things have caused such an upset. It’s just a cartoon, we say, but to Muslims, it is a complete disregard of their religion and culture, and a disrespect of the millions of Muslim people who want to lead peaceful lives. I think the answer certainly is not to react with such violence, and it is better to sit down and discuss it, but I don’t think that means they should just “get over it” and adopt western frameworks. It seems to me that most western representations of this situation don’t concede that meeting halfway means we also have to take steps toward that middle point - that would mean giving up our precious freeomd of speech in some small way! I am certainly not condoning the violence and hate speech that has been the response in so many parts of the world - here in Halifax we had a peaceful demonstration of about 200 Muslims at the Danish embassy - but I am also not going to say western political freedoms should rule all and others should just get over it. I think the cartoons were hurtful, and deliberately so, and given the unrest going on globally within the Muslim community, the cartoons were also irresponsible and provoking. There has to be some accountability!
in terms of libel, slander etc. - how is hate speech any different? libel and slander and defamation of character happen to individuals - hate speech happens to groups. why should we not have laws in place to protect groups in the same way we protect individuals? Western politics is based on a liberal ideology that places ultimate value on the individual to exercise rights and make rational decisions and be independent. But nobody lives like that - we all have context that influences our lives and part of that is membership in groups!
anyway, I really appreciate your viewpoint Mike. since you’re a relatively new visitor, you may not be used to the typse of engagement that sometimes go on here. I love engaging in debates and sharpening my philosophical arguing skills, and of course opposing views are part of that. so thank you, and please do feel free to respond again!
well, i am not a philosopher… but a few points…
frankly, both the points of there being no true “free” speech and that there exists no “right” of free speech, sound like word games - restricting one’s speech by sentence structure - for example - does not seem to me to have anything to do with free speech with respect to how the term is commonly used - to equate the restrictions of sentence structure, to the restrictions a state could put on content - well, it’s not the same
…and as far as free speech not being a right, you define rights a certain way, and then “show” that freedom of speech does not fit that framework…victory by definition, if you will
as far as what the guys who wrote the constitution meant - i am with you in some respects -i.e. the right to bear arms should not include an uzi or a bazooka - they couldn’t have foreseen that - yet, freedom of speech doesn’t sound like that situation - the first ammendment seems fairly straightfoward and broad…
i am not sure *what* my stand is on speech… my concern is that if governments get into the business of regulating speech - governments, being what they have been, for like forever, are going to be most interested in protecting their own interests and the interests of the nt group. while doing things to protect minority and historicall down-trodden groups truly is a noble goal - i fear that such power would, more than likely, be subverted and misused for other reasons…as a citizen of the US, i feel many of my rights are in jeopardy as it is - i am not so quick to give many away…
a lot, for me, depends on how * speech* is defined. i mean, obviously, anything that is threatening is clearly wrong and should be illegal - but threats are illegal regardless if they are * * speech….
as far as the muslim cartoons go - muslim’s need to realize that in pluralistic societies folks are not obliged to honor their traditions. my understanding of the issue is that first of all, any depiction of muhammed is considered taboo - and secondly, some could be interpreted to equate islam with . on the first count - one cannot reasonably expect a non-muslem to follow that restriction - on the second count, having seen the cartoons in question, first of all, they could be interpreted several ways - and secondly, given recent events, while i DO NOT believe islam is a religion of , it certainly is an issue that bears discussion, given the fact that those muslims who are ists, are not *coincidentally* muslims, but explicitly use their religion to justify their actions…if people have the misperception that equates islam with , i doubt they got it from a danish cartoon… in this specific case, the way to combat ignorant cartoons is not to suppress them or react in violate outrage, but rather shine the light of the truth on them
Mike,
I think you do quite well in theorizing for a non-philosopher…
I agree with you about the idea that there is no “free” speech. I think it’s an argument from semantics that isn’t practical, and it’s a bit too academic for my liking.
as far as rights vs. freedoms… I think there is a genuine difference there. Rights are derived fom natural law theory, which is all about inherent things that are central and precious to being human. Freedoms are, I think, a bit different, and have more to do with allowances given to the citizen by a government. Governments are about controlling the masses, and yet we want to be relatively free within societies, so we have freedoms given by the government to protect us from too much control.
I also agree with you that muslims fundamentalist terrorists use their religion to advance other goals, political goals. I also think that christian fundamentalist terrorists (Tim McVey comes to mind) use their religion to advance other goals. I also think these religions are in a way responsible for informing those other goals. Religion is not something that exists in a bubble, separate from culture and society, no matter how we insist on a separation of church and state. although I think you have a good point that non-muslims should not be expected to uphold the rules and traditions of islam, I also think that since religion and culture are so intertwined, especially in the middle east, we should be careful in how we (in the west) depict a religion to which we do not belong or understand.
your last line is the standard argument supporting freedom of speech: hate speech should be met with more speech. MY problems with this are mutliple: 1. hate speech, while it highlights an area that needs work wihtin our communities, is not productive in any way - it is hurtful and malicious, and the effects of that don’t go away so easily. 2. the argument is a bit idealistic - and I am an idealist of the highest order! I completely agree that hate should be met with education - but this method puts the emphasis on the perpetrator rather than the victim. 3. vulnerable groups shouldn’t have to endure hate speech while the haters keep on hating. the focus should be on providing protection to vulnerable groups while at the same time finding constructive ways to resolve issues that cause hate speech. A two pronged approach is the only thing that is fair to everyone.
not to play the semantic card, but the statement “Rights are derived fom natural law theory” should read “The Western Philosophical notion of Rights is derived fom natural law theory” - don’t mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon…
you statement differentiating rights from freedoms is retty much what i meant a few comments back when i said there were rights in a philosophic sense and rights in a legal sense. the role of a democratic government seems to me to be to balance rights: “the right to swing you fist ends where my nose begins…” so it is all about balance - back to the question of hate speech. laws have already been created to protect citizens from threatening speech - in that situation, the government has decided the right “not to be threatened” supercedes the “right to threaten” - that being said, why are additional laws required for “hate speech”. a threat is a threat no matter what the motivation. should i feel any differently if i am threatened because i am a vegetarian, or because simply someone doesn’t like me.
so the question becomes: what to do with hate speech? the first part of my answer is to ask - why are current laws against threatening speech inadequate? ok - so what else can we do - as a society; a violent response seems unreasonable, ignoring it seems irresponsible. that leaves us with two choices: suppressing it by law and countering it by shining the light of truth on it…
i have two objections to suppressing it: 1. the freedom of speech argument - we already have laws limiting threatening speech - i am reluctant to give in more on this issue, as indeed it is a slippery slope. i don’t want the gov’t in the business of limiting speech. the other is that, whether it be with individuals or a society, suppressing things is not healthy - often suppressed impulses come out twisted and even stronger. tht leaves us with the admittedly idealistic and slower path - education - countering ignorant speech with wise speech….naive -sure - but no more naive than saying “vulnerable groups shouldn’t have to endure hate speech while the haters keep on hating.” - putting the burden on not the victims - but society as a whole to show everyone the ignorance of the haters….
as far as christian fundamentalists - well, i don’t agree with them either - anyone who uses violence in the name of religion is twisted… the world is too complicated to be reduced to a few simple rules - no matter how appealing that notion may be….
I agree with Mike. And with Canada’s greatest defender of free speech, Defense Counsel Douglas Christie, who says:
“It’s a funny thing about free speech: It can’t be just for your political friends. If freedom means anything, it is the one valuable gift you have to give to your worst enemies, in order to keep it for yourself.” http://www.douglaschristie.com/
A Few of the Birdman’s Many Quotations on Free Speech and Truth
http://www.thebirdman.org
* Free speech is offensive speech.
* Truth hurts — especially if it’s funny.
* The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them — except force.
* A good writer should be both insightful and inciteful.
* The best ideas are those alive with manly vigor, which rape each virgin mind and fill it with the seed of unborn thoughts.
* You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the police.
* Things are interesting to the extent that they arouse controversy; and things which are the most interesting are those which are cursed and consigned to Hell.
* Free speech is an act of desperation. It is a last resort, an onslaught of quiet fury, and — in most cases — an insult to, and abandonment of, vital social norms. Men who murder have usually lost their inhibitions only for a moment; but men who speak freely have lost them forever, and are thus as dangerous to a society as a mad dog.
* To be taken seriously, you must first offend. If you do not, people will say, “Oh, he’s just like so-and-so, with perhaps a touch of such-and-such”, and forget about you entirely; while if you touch a raw nerve, you at least know that you are on the pathway to the brain. The point is, men will rarely think new thoughts without a jolt, and if you expect them to think the ones you have, then you must first crash your way into their consciousness.
* Truth has no manners. It is no respecter of persons. It wounds kings as deeply as commoners. It cuts down the high, and confirms the lowness of the low. It may dress up for formal occasions, but it does so only in order that it may more shockingly expose itself in front of the assembled company. And just as it respects no one, likewise there are few who respect it. But those who do are granted many favors — power, understanding, dominion, and of course the honor of the unswerving hatred of the ignorant millions.
* What I say may seem outrageous and outre, but my purpose is to push the envelope of discourse to its outer limits on the theory that freedom of speech, like both mind and body, requires vigorous exercise to remain healthy. Beyond this, the act of pushing the free speech envelope will embolden others to speak, and their acts of boldness reinforce the perception that free speech is tolerated, thereby increasing the probability that it will be. But as I embolden others to speak, so I embolden them to act; and in this way I help insure that free speech is more than a sounding gong or a tinkling symbol. Put another way, I hope to make the world safe for bigotry, ie, safe for the opinions to which — in Ambrose Bierce’s words — others are intractably and vociferously opposed. But if I advocate free speech, I also advocate and impose upon myself the harshest and most demanding discipline on speech: I acknowledge my critics and call attention to their criticism, and I always respond seriously to any serious criticism they may offer. What this means is that I accept and impose the discipline of truth: If someone is right in their criticism, I have an obligation to acknowledge the error — publicly if possible; and with as stringent a discipline as this, I am forced to be careful in what I say. For all its stringency, however, this discipline offers some very distinct advantages: It ultimately disarms my critics — not infrequently turning them into friends — and continually reinforces my reputation among both friends and foes as one who is as intolerant of error in himself as he is intolerant of it in others, and as morally incorruptible as any man who walks the earth. By this means, then, I retain as enemies only the evil and the stupid; and these are those who would be my enemies no matter what. Thus my fights are few, easy and usually small, while my victories are often grand; and in the process I accomplish one of the most desired goals of any man anywhere — I can sleep at night.
Can I use your article for a school project?
hi Jessie
define ‘use.’ tell me more about your project.
why not send me an email? emailthinkinggirl((at))yahoo((dot))ca. You can tell me about your project and how you want to use my work, and I can give you the proper referencing information for the paper.
and thank you for asking. much appreciated.
goodshepherd
sorry I never responded to this comment before, it must have slipped past me before I instituted comment moderation, which is very useful for identifying new comments on old posts.
basically, my position is that hate speech should be modulated by law WHILE other methods of eliminating hatred are practiced. I haven’t, and won’t, change my mind on this point. People who are the targets of hate speech deserve the protection of society, and not having hate speech legislation only protects the haters.
“Why Hate Speech Should Not Be Tolerated In a Free and Democratic Society”
I can’t believe you managed to type that phrase without realising how ridiculous and contradictory it is.
A society that limits an individual’s ability to express their emotions - and hatred is an emotion - is not a free society.
The right to express yourself and speak your mind, regardless of how wrong or stupid you might be, is a fundamental part of any functioning democratic and free society, where the right to not be hated doesn’t even exist.
I abhor racism and bigotry as much as anyone else, but not nearly as much as I abhor the mindset that it’s acceptable to criminalize and imprison people because they’ve dared to express an opinion you don’t like.
Mark
thanks for your comment. If you read the rest of the post and the comments here, I’m sure you would have seen that I’ve heard all these arguments before, and stood my ground. But, I’ll respond to your points as well.
First, it’s not contradictory. My conceptualization of freedom has more to do with collective freedom from barriers imposed by oppression than with individualistic rights to do whatever one wants. Since hate speech causes harm and continues oppression in meaningful ways, it is a barrier to the freedom of the marginalized people being spoken about. I don’t see how a society can tolerate hate speech about any group and then argue that that group is able to participate in that society in any equal way.
Second, society puts limits on emotional expression all the time. Men are not permitted according to their gender role to cry, for example. And anger is not tolerated when it becomes rage or violence. In order to advance in the business world, separation from emotion is pretty key. There are lots of ways emotion is limited.
Third, I’m not arguing there should be a right not to be hated. I’m arguing there IS a right not to be spoken about or depicted in a derogatory manner. This is not so different from slander or libel. So, our speech is already limited in those regards by law - why should hate speech be treated any differently? Hate speech is libelous and slanderous and harmful in the same ways, but it affects individuals AND groups. If we limit untrue speech affecting individuals’ reputations, why not limit untrue speech affecting group reputations (and the individuals who make up that group)?
Finally, it isn’t about opinions that I don’t like - it’s about falsehoods that create real harm in the lives of people who have gotten the societal shaft. It’s about power relations, and that some groups hide behind freedom of speech rhetoric to protect their social positions and defend their continued oppression of marginalized groups. It’s about acknowledging that speech has consequences that, combined with the way society is structured, can be harmful, and not dismissing psychological harm. (It’s interesting to me that we privilege the mind over the body except in terms of harm: we have to show physical marks in order to be harmed. makes no sense.)
Anyway, it’s been nearly a year since I wrote this piece, and I haven’t changed my mind. This is one of the most popular posts on this blog, it gets hits everyday, and I hope that people read it and get a different perspective than the typical individualistic argument about freedom of speech being fundamental to democracy. Whose democracy? Whose speech is valued over others? Whose speech is not given uptake? Whose speech is taken as TRUTH? Who does that affect? What are the consequences of speech? Who does it affect, and who is immune? How do power relations affect speech? Who is harmed?
thanks to everyone who continues to read this post.
You should look into justifications for paternalism of state authority. If you buy into legislating an action of the state knows best, then you have to possibly look into exactly how you philosophically justify measures of intervention. Distinctions between soft and hard paternalisms are relevant here.
thanks Ed for the suggestion!
“It appears from these documents that the Canadian government recognizes that individual identity is based on group membership, and the rights of individuals can be secured through the protection of groups.”
It would be more accurate to say that the text you cite recognizes that individuals need protection from hate propaganda directed to groups that individuals identify with. The text does not indicate any attempt to protect groups, and thus protect their individual members as a consequence. Your conclusion is not warranted from the text you cite, and it is not warranted from a close reading of the laws itself. You would have made a stronger case for your conclusion if you had cited CCRF 15(2) because it allows favoritism for the amelioration of conditions. But even that would have been insufficient, because amelioration of unfair conditions does not assert a group-based right.
Speech and Context – I have no idea how this section relates to your main argument, other than to reinforce the notion that arguments against Hate Speech laws are solely motivated by a belief in the absolute right of self expression. If you wanted to support the notion that free expression is not absolute, I think practical, non-theoretical arguments like “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” or “fighting words” would be sufficient.
“In regards to hate speech, it is hard to understand why one person’s (or group’s) right to freedom of expression should trump the right of a group not to have hateful things said about them. Why should the rights of the haters be held above those of the victims of hate speech? Societies that tolerate hate speech institutionalize that form of violence.”
Your assertion of group rights is not supported. The definition of hate speech you cite does not suggest violence as the only possible consequence, so the question is miscast in a way to suggest those that oppose hate speech laws support violence.
“Those who are harmed by such oppression deserve protection and support as society works to undo and disentangle the interlocking systems that have created situations in which disadvantaged people are trapped between the proverbial rock and a hard place.”
In this sentence and in those proceeding you completely miss a particular scenario. It isn’t always members of a privileged group employing hate speech against members of a marginalized group – or the reverse. Consideration should be given to situations where members of one marginalized group employ hate speech against members of another marginalized group.
“Western society has been built on the backs of disadvantaged people, and they are still paying the price today because of pervasive beliefs involved in racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc.”
To me, these are fighting words. I think you could take out this sentence completely and still be able to make your argument, and I’m wondering what purpose is served by including them. Was there even the slightest chance that a professor would read them and redline them? Or were you quite confident the professor would read them and say – well I don’t agree with the reasoning, but I’ll give her credit anyway because I can see she’s onboard with the program.
it’s all a matter of interpretation, STF.
so allow me to clarify so you dont misinterpret what I have written.
First of all, the constitution and embedded charter is written in fairly broad language, on purpose, so that it can be interpreted broadly. whether or not group or individual rights are protected is, I think, a matter of interpretation, and I think an argument could be made either way. ultimately, any group protection also protects the individual members of that group, so that would be the most useful reading, but really, protecting individuals because they are memebrs of marginalized social groups is kind of the same thing, no? I think you’re splitting hairs.
I think hate speech is a form of violence. that’s where that sentence came from.
the section on context? you had problems understanding the relevance? that hate speech occurs within a particular social milieu, that supports it? and yet supporters of free speech want to hide that away and essentially claim that speech is just speech and basically occurs in a vacuum?
I don’t see how my argument would be less applicable to hate speech uttered by someone who was also marginalized. Any speech that harms marginalized people should be limited, no matter who the speaker is.
as for the last sentence you picked on, how is that fighting words exactly? how could you possibly not see that western society has only been possible by the exploitation of disadvantaged people? like, oh you know, indigenous peoples, whose land we stole and whom we rounded up into little internment camps called reserves? or, oh i dunno, the africans who were captured and stolen and shiped across the ocean to perform menial labour and suffer grave abuse and injustice as slaves? or, the millions of women who have been treated like pieces of reproductive meat for thousands of years? I included that sentence because I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. As for what my prof thought about it - those kinds of manipulations don’t really enter into my work. I wouldn’t include or not include a sentence because of who was going to be reading my paper.
“Any speech that harms marginalized people should be limited, no matter who the speaker is. ”
The reason to consider hate speech on the part of one marginalized group against another is this: on what basis do you suppose that these laws will be actually applied fairly, and with accurate judgment on the relative marginalization of groups? I can easily see societies using these laws as another means to pit one group against another - suppressing hate speech by a less favored group against another, more favored - but still marginalized - group. It is easy for a society as a whole to assert that one group is marginalized, and thus deserving of protection, even though it really isn’t. Divide and conquer is a traditional means of maintaining power, and arbitrary, capricious suppression of some speech is an excellent way to divide.
“as for the last sentence you picked on, how is that fighting words exactly? how could you possibly not see that western society has only been possible by the exploitation of disadvantaged people?”
I would agree with a statement that said something along the lines of “societies in general marginalize and oppress some groups.” I wondered if you were suggesting that Western societies were somehow different than others in this regard. They struck me “fighting words” because I have libertarian perspective and I don’t believe that Western societies are uniquely malevolent.
In wasn’t suggesting that you didn’t believe what you wrote, and I didn’t suggest that you wrote it without careful study. It didn’t seem to me to be a statement that was necessary to your point. I was surprised that you didn’t feel any need to explain such a broad statement in an academic paper, and I was wondering if your class and your professor consider this as a statement that is completely self-evident, and in need of no justification.
STF -
i don’t know why so many libertarians are attracted to this blog, seeing as I am so firmly anti-libertarian.
funny, your first paragraph reminds me of those MRA idiots who claim they are so very oppressed by a) their gender and b) feminism, and deny that they have any c) privilege attached to being the dominant gender class in our society.
I’m not advocating arbitrary or capricious limitation of some speech. I’m advocating the limitation of speech that is hateful and perpetuates harms against marginalized groups.
however, your point that laws are not always fairly applied is well-noted. considering who generally ends up making laws, and whose interests those laws protect, no, laws are quite often not just.
I’m not necessarily suggesting that western societies are more malicious than non-western societies. I am suggesting that western societies have been and continue to be successful because of the exploitation of marginalized peoples. unfortunately, with globalization, this exploitation has been extended to include not only marginalized peoples within western society, but also peoples of the global south.
It’s not a particularly broad statement. and, considering that it’s TRUE, I guess I didn’t feel any need to explain it any further, nor was I asked to by either my class or my professor.
“i don’t know why so many libertarians are attracted to this blog, seeing as I am so firmly anti-libertarian.”
Personally, I like reading view that are very different from my own - to me it is the only real way to learn.
“however, your point that laws are not always fairly applied is well-noted. considering who generally ends up making laws, and whose interests those laws protect, no, laws are quite often not just.”
The “who” part is the problem for me. Like you I’m offended by hate speech, and I wish I could make it go away. But I don’t think there is any “who” available I could trust - me included - to have the wisdom, benevolence and innate sense of fairness that would offer any prospect that these new laws wouldn’t be abused just as existing laws are. I think it is impossible to develop any objective, correct consensus on who the marginalized groups are, and the exact particulars of the type of speech that would be suppressed.
“unfortunately, with globalization, this exploitation has been extended to include not only marginalized peoples within western society, but also peoples of the global south.”
There you go with those “fighting words” again.
My work involves just the sort of global system you take issue with. I work on a project for a multinational corporation that uses employee and contract staff from the US, Europe, and the global south. Apparently you feel work of this nature should be stopped, because it is intrinsically exploitative. I’d only point out that as far as I know, no one is chained to their desks - everyone who participates feels that is in their personal interest to do so, considering their alternatives. If they didn’t benefit, they wouldn’t do it. And people come and go from the project all the time - it isn’t a static, fixed permanent institution.
Now I’m pretty sure you object in principle, and you would like to tinker with, or tune the choices we’re all allowed to make. Or even suppress this effort entirely. All I can say is I doubt that anyone involved - even the very real people from the global south who I work with every day - would profit from such interference, however well-intentioned it might be.
STF - wow, you sure are putting a lot of words in my mouth! I’m not sure there’s any room left in there for my own words.
you said: “I think it is impossible to develop any objective, correct consensus…”
I would finish this sentence with “on anything, because objectivity is an illusion.”
does that help? I simply don’t believe in objectivity. I do however think that something that looks kind of like it can be achieved, call it a model of reality, with the involvement of democratic, diverse and divergent epistemic communities in which equality of participants in paramount. this is, you will note, not at all even close to what we have going on in most settings in our society, from politics to academia to lawmaking.
now, as for the rest of the ideas you wish to attribute to me, I said nothing of the sort. Globalization is problematic in so many ways because we live in a world that is full of imbalances of power. I have no problem with what people choose for themselves - I support anyone’s right to do anything they want in their lives within the limitation of not causing harm to others. What I have a problem with is the level of coercion that unequal relations of power place on people that limits their agency. I don’t ask whether someone’s choice is right or not, I ask whether it is free and autonomous, or not. and unequal relations of power make those waters very difficult to navigate. The responsibility lies with those who hold the balance of power to make sure coercion isn’t playing out in the “choices” made by those who are marginalized.
Sorry - didn’t intend to put words in your mouth. I’ll go and do some research on epistemic communities and see what they might bring to bear.
I[ve read up on epistemic communities and they seem promising for many things. I’m working with Peter Haas’ definition - “An epistemic community is a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area.” They require a shared set of beliefs, a shared consensus on causes, and shared notions of validity.
Promising - but not for Hate Speech laws. To successfully charter and empower such a community would be itself a sign that we’ve transcended some of the deep divisions we have. We’re far from there yet. Since we are proposing a law, one that will coercively suppress some speech, the political act of chartering such a community and selecting its members would be, well - poisonous. Since this community would have the power to enforce limits on what can be said and what can’t be said, it’s selection would be spectacularly divisive. Some order of magnitude greater than the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. What “expertise” would be required? Who exactly would be defined as marginalized groups. What would their relative weight and representation be? Would only marginalized groups have the right to appoint their members, and would the prior speech of proposed community members be scrutinized? Do we want activist, radical theorists, or proponents of assimilation? It would be ugly - if you think we have too much hate speech now, just wait.
And even if by some fortuitous oversight, the current oppressive regime somehow allows a seemingly superior, more enlightened, representative, and diverse group to set limits on all public discourse, what would be the benefit? A quieting of the noise and fear, and a slow unraveling of the unjust arrangements we have today. Perhaps marginalized groups would prosper somewhat and form a new social norm. Perhaps. The cost of that promise is that the state, which has a certain power of compulsion and coercion now, will be incrementally more powerful - through these laws itself - to maintain itself. So the best outcome is that there is a certain relaxation of fear. An aim would have been achieved, but at the cost of a more powerful, more intrusive, and less vulnerable state.
There are a lot of ways this can go wrong, but only a few ways, and perhaps only one way it can go right. I fear that even that best outcome would be temporary. I believe the state is either an agent of oppression, or the primary instrument of oppression used by the powerful.
One of the reasons I visit this site is because it makes me question some assumptions, and one of the things I’ve learned here is that fundamental notions of identity are social constructs. But that works both ways. If we achieve our objectives, and are able to shuffle the deck somewhat, and grant people a better hand, inevitably some new norm, some new arrangement of power would be in force. Some new arrangement of identities. There is no real basis to suppose it would maintain itself in a more benevolent, fair manner than today’s norm. A prevalent social norm is to suppose that marginalized groups are ethically superior to the powerful. I question that - the history of revolutions does offers little evidence that it is true. We would have institutionalized today’s notion of a better, more just social order, and given it a more powerful state to maintain and extend its dominion. So even the best outcome of today may yield a more oppressive regime later.
I believe the safer way to justice and equality is to weaken the state, not strengthen it. To diffuse power, not concentrate it.
One thing we could, perhaps agree on would be to charter a community along the lines of what you thought, even at the risk of the poisonous fight we might have. I’m all for it, provided it does not have the coercive power of the law. It might serve as a valuable arbiter, charging some speech as being hateful, mean and harmful. I can see a real value in that.
There are several comments that are suggesting a comparison between libel laws and hate speech laws. Pressing this analogy further, libel laws generally include an exception for true statements. Should hate speech laws have exceptions for statements that can be proven “true” in a courtroom by a preponderance of the evidence? If I say X about a disadvantaged group, and X is both negative and able to be proven “true” by a preponderance of the evidence in a courtroom, is it still hate speech?
I’m going to try to come up with an example that isn’t also an emotionally charged one. If I were to say that people who follow the Aztec religion are evil because they practice human sacrifice, is that hate speech that should be banned? Any law that that can be interpreted as “you can’t criticize this group” can have some nasty implications, because some groups might deserve to be criticized. (Specifically, I object to anyone who says I can’t say bad things about a religion or people who choose to follow a religion, because a religion is a set of beliefs. Why does a specific religious identity deserve any more protection than a specific secular identity?)