What does “hate speech” actually mean?
No government has yet been able to define the term successfully. Could you do any better?
To all those who support “hate speech” laws, I ask one simple question: how would you define the term in law?
In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that there “is no universally accepted definition” of the expression “hate speech”.
A manual published by UNESCO in 2015 accepted that “the possibility of reaching a universally shared definition seems unlikely”.
In his book Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination (2017), Alexander Brown pointed out that the jurisprudential literature on hate speech “contains numerous competing, sometimes contradictory characterizations”.
In his book Censored (2016), Paul Coleman compiled and reproduced all the current hate speech laws in Europe and, by doing so, showed that no two governments can agree on the phrase’s meaning.
Most governments specify that “hate speech” is usually directed against those with “protected characteristics”. These characteristics vary from country to country, but in the UK they are:
age
gender reassignment
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin)
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
But while such characteristics are clearly defined in most country’s laws, the same cannot be said for the all-important concepts of “hate speech” and “hatred”.
Let’s consider a few examples from around the world…
The Irish government were up until recently proposing to introduce hate speech legislation in which “hatred” was defined as “hatred”.
In March of this year, the Canadian government proposed a law that would give judges the ability to put a citizen under house arrest if they thought they might commit a hate crime in the future. This is Bill C-63, which would allow citizens to file complaints if they see any examples of online “hate speech”, leading to a potential $20,000 fine for those found guilty.
The Scottish government drafted a “hate speech” bill in which those found guilty of “insulting” behaviour could be imprisoned for seven years, and even statements uttered in the privacy of one’s own home could lead to prosecution. The law as it currently stands means that police are obliged to investigate all complaints of “hate speech”, and what classifies as “hateful” is based solely on the “perception” of the “victim”.
The UK government currently prohibits the posting of “grossly offensive” material online under Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act, even though the legislation does not specifically what “grossly offensive” means.
Police in the UK also routinely investigate “non-crime hate incidents” which, according to the Hate Crime Operational Guidance issued by the College of Policing, can be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.
The French government currently permits the prosecution of citizens for “public insults” based on religion, race, ethnicity or national origin.
In Germany, paragraph 103 of the German criminal code insists that “whosoever insults a foreign head of state or an accredited diplomat in Germany… shall be liable to imprisonment of up to three years or a fine”.
In Turkey, the current president (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) reinstated obscure laws meaning he could prosecute anyone who offended him. Tens of thousands have been arrested for “insulting the president” in the ten years since he came to power.
In Finland, “agitation against a minority group” is a crime under the Finnish criminal code, which is why politician Päivi Räsänen was prosecuted for posting a Bible verse on Twitter that was perceived to be opposed to homosexuality.
Many regimes in the world today – e.g., Thailand, Cambodia, Morocco and Saudi Arabia – retain lèse majesté laws in order to criminalise criticism of the king.
In the USA this week, vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz said that “hate speech” was not protected by the First Amendment, and in a recent speech to the World Economic Forum, former secretary of state John Kerry described the First Amendment as a “major block” to preventing people spreading “disinformation”.
It is quite clear that the nebulous nature of “hate speech” laws leave them wide open to be weaponised against political opposition. And yet more and more nations are introducing them to the statute books.
So I ask again: given that no two governments can agree on how “hate speech” ought to be defined, could you do any better?
I have been asking this for quite some time. Because Canada is becoming an at times creepy place with regards to language police, I have posited this question of what exactually is considered “hate speech.”
The only answer I can give is that any speech that incites violence is a strong limit. This cannot include “words are violence”, or “hurty words.” Hate speech would be inciting others to physical violence on another.
Thanks, Andrew.
I think it is often impossible to assess whether a statement involves 'hate' or not. 'You are an imbecile' could be a statement of fact or an expression of hatred ( or both). In any event the law should not be troubling itself with this! In the face of the alarming approach to free speech by the current Labour government I am continually quoting Lord Justice Sedley in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733:
'Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers' Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.'
Dusty