Hate+Speech

**Individual Research Assignment - //Hate Speech//**
__**Introduction:**__ A democracy is a system which treats every individual equally without there being any discrimination on the basis of race, religion, colour, caste, sex and other such differences. Every individual has a right to be protected from harm, by the state. As the present day democracies become more and more diversified with respect to different groups of people, there is a greater need for laws which make hate speech illegal. Not only are these laws legitimate in a democracy but are also essential in the present day societies. As people of different backgrounds come into contact with each other due to the complex structure of the modern day societies, hate speeches have become the prominent tool in discriminating and inciting violence against a minority or a group of people.

__**History:**__ After the atrocities of World War II, the United Nations was formed which formulated the charter of rights in 1948 (U.S Department of Statement). One of the basic rights that every individual has is the ‘right to freedom of expression’ or also called the ‘right to speech’. This right clearly states that every human being has the right to freely express themselves, but like all the other rights this right also has a limitation clause which states that every individual has a right to freely express themselves as long as they don’t harm other individuals in the society. Hate speech not only causes indirect harm but also has the potential of causing direct harm to the target group. The best example of hate speech leading to direct and indirect harm to a group of people can be seen just before the formation of the United Nations. Hitler’s main and most persuasive tool against the Jew community and the so called purification of Germany was hate speech (Goldhagen). His hate speeches stirred up such passion amongst the Nazi followers that the world saw a side of humanity which was previously thought not to exist, the holocaust. Till date it is termed as one of the most horrific events in the history of mankind. And it all started with the abuse of the right to speech. Some people might object to this as being an exception or an isolated event in the history. But this was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the abuse of right to speech and specifically of hate speech as being one of the emerging weapons of violence and hatred.

**__Fundamental Rights:__** Another fundamental right stated in the charter of rights is the ‘right to be protected from harm’. In simpler words to protect the weak from the strong, to save the poor from the rich and to let the minorities feel safe from the majorities. The whole concept of democracy is based on the idea of equality. To treat every individual equally, which also implies to protect every individual from the society and its destructive elements. Even the most firm supporter of the right to speech without any limitations would have to agree that hate speech does have the potential of causing direct harm to the target group. Which conflicts with the groups or more specifically the individual’s right to be protected from harm. When an armed individual with no intentions of hurting anyone walks on the street firing in the air, they would on most occasions be caught by the authorities on the charges of violence and disrupting the societal peace. Why then should hate speech be any different? At least the armed individual had no intentions of harming anyone but in the case of hate speech the intentions are very clear. Or should we wait for something like the holocaust to repeat itself and then take appropriate actions? If democracy does indeed believe in equality then why should it not take precautionary measures to protect different interest groups rather than doing damage control once the harm is done? And the most basic measure it can take is to bring laws making hate speech illegal so that we can avoid another Hitler in the making.

Although the fundamental rights are aimed at an individual rather than a group or a society sometimes these rights need to be limited for a better and peaceful society. Humans are social beings and if the society they live in is not safe and understanding then no amount of fundamental rights can make their existence happy and satisfactory. Even renowned historians such as Isaiah Berlin and Thomas Hobbes believed that liberty should be accompanied by certain societal conditions for the preservation of peaceful co-existence. Berlin calls this concept as Positive Liberty (Walker Samuel 1994). Hate speech not only contradicts this concept of peaceful co-existence but opposes such an idea by inspiring hatred in a group towards others in the society. It is rightly said that words can sometimes be more powerful than the deadliest of weapons. If everyone in a society decided to use hate speech to express themselves then let alone peaceful, co-existence itself would be nearly impossible.

A society where the fundamental rights are followed without any limitations is an ideal form of democracy. But unfortunately it is only viable in the ideal world. In today’s world, which is not even close to being ideal, we need to have limitations on some rights so that the society feels safe and can use its rights without any external pressure or force. Hate speech acts an as an external force into pressurizing groups into either changing or facing discrimination by the majority or other groups. In such a situation an individual does not only lose the right to be treated equally but also has to give up the right to freedom of association due to the threat of being discriminated or harmed. Just because an individual or a group wants to express themselves in a hateful way is not reason enough to make the whole society suffer. As it is in a democracy everyone is given the right to express themselves in a peaceful manner and to participate in the governing of the democracy. Then why do we need to resort to means such as hateful speeches to get our views across?

The main argument against laws that make hate speech illegal in a democracy is that it limits the right to freedom of expression of a person, in turn restricting their independence. Critics claim that such laws restrict the freedom of individuals and grant the states more power which can lead to the misuse of authority and the exploitation of individuals. But don’t we follow rules and regulations on a daily basis just so that the order in the society is maintained. Sometimes it is in our best interest to be limited by the law so as to protect ourselves and others from harm. Every individual has the right to freedom of movement but we still follow traffic rules because it is in our best interest. There would always be somebody who wouldn’t follow these rules and endanger the society and that is precisely why such offenders are punished by the law. Similarly there should be laws against offenders abusing the right to speech by making hate speeches. An individual making a hate speech is similar to the offender not following traffic rules, both putting the society in danger of chaos and destruction, not to forget harm to others lives ( McCormack ). Nothing good can ever come from a hate speech. Why then are we still defending those who use it to achieve their own means and goals?

Another strong argument against such laws is that the matter of hate speech is highly subjective and cannot be clearly stated. The line between a controversial speech and a hate speech is too thin to make any sort of distinction. A speech might be hateful to one and only controversial to others. It is true that the line between a controversial and a hateful speech is thin but so is the line between discrimination and ignorance, between a warning and a threat. But we have appropriate laws making discrimination illegal, defining threats as unlawful. The thin line needs to be made prominent so that innocent people don’t get exploited. Only by making laws against them can such practices be stopped and individuals protected. A society can never be happy and satisfied if it is threatened by discrimination and hateful practices. The rights of individuals can never be truly practiced if they are in constant threat from others making hateful comments about them or their practices. Such practices create hatred and ill feelings towards the society. It is always better to prevent such situations rather than deal with them when they occur.

__** Conclusion :**__

Hate speech is something which has no advantages, nothing good can ever come from it. It only fosters hatred and violence against one another. Its existence is not due to its merits but due to the fact that the line dividing hate speech from the rest is too thin to make a judgement. We live in a world where there are a few individuals who would use any means to create chaos and cause destruction. And now they have found a very effective and legal way of doing so, by means of hate speeches. It worked for Hitler and its working for them. Until we reach that ideal point in our society when we would no longer need laws to regulate our behaviour, when terms such as violence and hatred would be words of the past, when we would co-exist peacefully forever. Till such a time, we need limitations and law making tools that make hate speech illegal in a democracy, so as to reach that ideal point. Not only are such laws legitimate in a democracy but are essential for the very survival of democracies themselves.

||Bibliography:

 * Image:** Latuff, Carlos. __Hate speech__. Digital image. __Wikkimedia Commons__. 19 Nov. 2007. 04 Feb. 2009

"The Formation of the United Nations, 1945." U.S. Department of State. 05 Feb. 2009 

Whillock, Rita, and David Slayden. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Walker, Samuel. __Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy__. Nebraska: U of Nebraska P, 1994.

Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (1997). //Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.// New York: Vintage/ Random House.

McCormack, Thelma. "MULTICULTURALISM, RACISM AND HATE SPEECH." 13 (Nov. & dec. 1998)