Hate Speech

This is an interesting section in our ethics class. Should hate speech (e.g Sexist, racist, communal) be censored or banned in public institutions and colleges. Is hate speech a crime or is it a right under 'freedom of speech'. When and how should freedom of speech be restricted? Could it open the door for more rights to be taken away?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

This is an interesting section in our ethics class. Should hate speech (e.g Sexist, racist, communal) be censored or banned in public institutions and colleges. Is hate speech a crime or is it a right under 'freedom of speech'. When and how should freedom of speech be restricted? Could it open the door for more rights to be taken away?

I think it should not matter to an individual or influence others as long as there is no physical harm. Be rational and not be supporting something blindly, having something called "brain" we should use it. Par hum human beings sab dil pe le letey hain. Without giving much thought we start to act quickly on such issues.

I am always of the opinion tyhat everyone has the right to express their views as long as it doesn't turn into a bashing. If anyone can express their views nicely, without attacking others, but rather using civil language and at the same time critisizing very constructively aI dont see any problem to it.

Originally posted by: stranger@mirror

I am always of the opinion tyhat everyone has the right to express their views as long as it doesn't turn into a bashing. If anyone can express their views nicely, without attacking others, but rather using civil language and at the same time critisizing very constructively aI dont see any problem to it.

Not should be right to express views and opinion like Raj Thakre.

Well here is an essay I wrote for one of my assignments in the ethics class.

1) Regulation of speech on campuses, especially regulation against hate speech is a delicate and controversial subject that has been the subject of a lot of heated debates. The first amendment of our constitution grants every citizen the freedom of speech and expression. The constitution protects our right to express ourselves, irrespective of whether we are wrong or right and whether our opinions concur with the majority of people or not.

There is no legal or moral excuse to curb speech unless there is near and present danger, or immediate significant harm. For example screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater is a crime as it immediately puts hundreds of people at risk of harm in a stampede. Hate speech raises the challenge of defining 'harm' and clearly outlining what is the near and present danger of hate speech.

The law protects people from harm. It protects us from being stabbed, raped or being physically abused in any way. Anyone who causes such harm will be punished by the full extent of the law. However, since hate speech and there is no immediate physical damage there is no clear way identify a harm caused by it. Of course there is an emotional and psychological harm caused by verbal abuse and hate speech. Psychiatrists will testify to depression, loss of self esteem & confidence, even suicidal tendencies caused by hate speech. However, even with the most compelling scientific evidence emotional harm will always be subjective and perceptive. Different people will react differently to different words and situations and have a different definition of what is hateful and offensive.

John Doe may be a mentally strong and confident person who will be unperturbed if people called him 'faggot' while walking down the street, but Jack Doe maybe exceptionally sensitive and take offense to his friend absentmindedly stating that his dress looked 'gay'. Similarly one person may view a Jewish joke to be funny, while another will view it as 'hateful' and 'spiteful' against Jews. It is virtually impossible to identify a clear and evident effect of harm. Any attempts to create such definitions will be subject to moral and paternal perceptions of the lawmakers who try to define it. The lawmakers will bring their personal perceptions of homophobia, sexism and racism in defining these 'harms'. The result will be the imposing of their moral perception on everyone.

Andrew Altman recognized that hate speech could not be regulated by perlocutionary effects. Not only do people have the right to express their racist, sexist and homophobic viewpoints the perlocutionary effect will vary by person to person. He suggests an alternative that focuses on the illocutionary force of the utterance. He distinguishes that there is a difference between using slurs and derogatory terms like 'nigger' or 'faggot' and giving an articulate speech on why blacks are an inferior race and why homosexuals are a disgrace to society.

Regulating campus speeches based on the illocutionary force appears to be a better option to the perlocutionary effect. It targets illocutionary forces that are intended to cause harm. Words like slurs, derogatory terms that are used as words to cause speech act wrong to others and treat them as moral inferiors are to be regulated as inappropriate illocutionary forces. On the surface it seems appealing to pass regulations against words that maybe equated to 'fighting words' or words used to injure or harm others.

However, even the illocutionary force of the utterance fails to be a reliable means to regulate speech. It attempts to enforce a respect-for-persons ethic on society, expecting people to treat each other as moral equals. The bigger flaw is it attempts to define and assign a specific connotation to a word. In modern communication it is almost impossible to pick and choose which words have the illocutionary force of speech act wrong and which do not. Altman himself recognizes that the lines cannot be clear cut. 'Queer' which was a derogatory term used for homosexuals is being changed to be used as a term of pride. 'Nigger' which is also socially considered as a racial slur is often used by the African American community to address each other. So regulating speech based on illocutionary force would require sweeping regulations that will censure the usage of any word termed derogatory irrespective of the usage intent or it would require laying elaborate foundations of defining intent drawing lines between appropriate and inappropriate use. Such regulations will also have the challenge of keeping up with an up to date dictionary of new epithets, slurs and insults introduced in slang and of words that have started to lose their previous negative connotation.

Regulating hate speech appears to render itself as a moral catch 22. From an ethical perspective it seems to be fair and morally justified to protect citizens from psychological harm and prohibiting people from using words that can be classified to have 'harmful' intent. However, due the nature of speech it is impossible to determine an objective, completely neutral, unbiased and fair hate speech regulation that regulates speech while protecting the first amendment rights of everyone involved. There also appears to be no way to create regulations that are clear, unambiguous and easy to apply and follow. As it has occurred in the past they can be too sweeping or become too confusing and complicated.

While my personal moral perceptions state that hate speech is morally wrong and morally impermissible, there is no legitimate reason why campuses should regulate hate speech. The law already protects people from physical harm and harassment. Campuses should impose regulations in conformity to these laws. Speech that forms a pattern of harassment can be regulated and legal action against harassment can be charged. Similarly speech that invites people to cause physical harm and injure others can also be regulated. However, at present it appears that there is no legitimate means for additional regulation.

Regulating speech cannot fix the 'harm' caused by a slur or epithet. Campuses who want to help all citizens live with dignity and self respect can organize support groups that help people who feel emotional 'harm' caused by hate speech. This offers support to people who were intentionally harmed and people who maybe unintentionally harmed by reckless utterances. Natural and unnatural events like death, divorce, accidents cause emotional 'harm' to people. We cannot find a way to regulate everything. The best alternative is to help people restore their dignity. Helping people find their inner strength and dignity through supporting each other will help them face future challenges and be immune to harm by thoughtless utterances.

Education and social awareness have brought about a change in many social attitudes. Many communities that once suffered constant mistreatment are able to command equal dignity and respect in most places. Regulating campus speech may suppress attitudes and opinions, avoiding too many regulations will constantly bring light upon attitudes, behaviors and opinions that we want to correct and fix. It gives the opportunity for education and social awareness to continue bringing changes in our society.

Campuses should not regulate speech unless it is in some sort of violation of the law. There is no legitimate reason to enforce such regulations. There are other alternatives to manage the potential of 'harm' due to speech and unregulated speech gives society the ability to keep evolving, changing and improving.