Editing Hate speech (section)

===Criticism===
Several activists and scholars have criticized the practice of limiting hate speech. [[Kim Holmes]], Vice President of the conservative [[The Heritage Foundation|Heritage Foundation]] and a critic of hate speech theory, has argued that it "assumes [[bad faith]] on the part of people regardless of their stated intentions" and that it "obliterates the ethical responsibility of the individual".<ref>{{cite web|first=Kim|last=Holmes|author-link=Kim Holmes|url=https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/the-origins-hate-speech|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191002092530/https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/the-origins-hate-speech|url-status=unfit|archive-date=2 October 2019|title=The Origins of "Hate Speech"|website=heritage.org|publisher=[[The Heritage Foundation]]|date=22 October 2018}}</ref> [[Rebecca Ruth Gould]], a professor of Islamic and Comparative Literature at the [[University of Birmingham]], argues that laws against hate speech constitute [[viewpoint discrimination]] (which is prohibited by the [[First Amendment]] in the United States) as the legal system punishes some viewpoints but not others.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Rebecca Ruth |last=Gould|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3284999|title=Is the 'Hate' in Hate Speech the 'Hate' in Hate Crime? Waldron and Dworkin on Political Legitimacy|journal=Jurisprudence|date=15 November 2018|ssrn=3284999}}</ref> Other scholars, such as Gideon Elford, argue instead that "insofar as hate speech regulation targets the consequences of speech that are contingently connected with the substance of what is expressed then it is viewpoint discriminatory in only an indirect sense."<ref>Elford, Gideon. "Legitimacy, Hate Speech, and Viewpoint Discrimination." ''Journal of Moral Philosophy'' 1, no. aop (2020): 1–26.</ref> John Bennett argues that restricting hate speech relies on questionable conceptual and empirical foundations<ref>Bennett, John T. "The Harm in Hate Speech: A Critique of the Empirical and Legal Bases of Hate Speech Regulation." ''Hastings Const. LQ'' 43 (2015): 445.</ref> and is reminiscent of efforts by totalitarian regimes to control the thoughts of their citizens.<ref>Bennett, John. "The Totalitarian Ideological Origins of Hate Speech Regulation." ''Cap. UL Rev.'' 46 (2018): 23.</ref>

[[Civil libertarians]] say that hate speech laws have been used, in both developing and developed nations, to persecute minority viewpoints and critics of the government.<ref name="Strossen" /><ref>{{cite web |url=https://reason.com/2015/10/20/how-hate-speech-laws-work-in-practice/ |title=How Hate Speech Laws Work In Practice |last=Brown |first=Elizabeth Nolan |publisher=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] |date=2015-10-20 |accessdate=2024-04-12 }}</ref><ref name="Greenwald" /><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thefire.org/news/pakistan-cites-hate-speech-restriction-effort-censor-academic-freedom-petition |title=Pakistan cites 'hate speech' restriction in effort to censor academic freedom petition |last=McLaughlin |first=Sarah |publisher=[[Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression]] |date=2019-01-10 |accessdate=2024-04-12 }}</ref> Former [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]] president [[Nadine Strossen]] says that, while efforts to censor hate speech have the goal of protecting the most vulnerable, they are ineffective and may have the opposite effect: disadvantaged and ethnic minorities being charged with violating laws against hate speech.<ref name="Strossen">{{Cite web|first=Nadine|last=Strossen|author-link=Nadine Strossen|url=https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/12/14/minorities-suffer-the-most-from-hate-speech-laws/|title=Minorities suffer the most from hate-speech laws|website=[[Spiked (magazine)|Spiked]]|date=14 December 2018|language=en|access-date=5 November 2019}}</ref> Journalist [[Glenn Greenwald]] says that hate speech laws in Europe have been used to censor [[left-wing]] views as much as they have been used to combat hate speech.<ref name="Greenwald">{{cite web |url=https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ |title=In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Often Used to Suppress and Punish Left-Wing Viewpoints |first=Glenn |last=Greenwald |authorlink=Glenn Greenwald |publisher=[[The Intercept]] |date=2017-08-09 |accessdate=2024-04-12 }}</ref>

Miisa Kreandner and Eriz Henze argue that hate speech laws are arbitrary, as they only protect some categories of people but not others.<ref name="Heinze, Eric 2009">Heinze, Eric. "Cumulative jurisprudence and human rights: The example of sexual minorities and hate speech." ''The International Journal of Human Rights'' 13, no. 2–3 (2009): 193–209.</ref><ref>Kreander, Miisa. "The Widening Definition of Hate Speech – How Well Intended Hate Speech Laws Undermine Democracy and the Rule of Law." (2022). {{ISBN?}} {{page needed|date=September 2023}}</ref> Henze argues the only way to resolve this problem without abolishing hate speech laws would be to extend them to all possible conceivable categories, which Henze argues would amount to totalitarian control over speech.<ref name="Heinze, Eric 2009"/>

Michael Conklin argues that there are benefits to hate speech that are often overlooked. He contends that allowing hate speech provides a more accurate view of the human condition, provides opportunities to change people's minds, and identifies certain people that may need to be avoided in certain circumstances.<ref>{{Cite SSRN |last=Conklin|first=Michael|date=2020|title=The Overlooked Benefits of 'Hate Speech': Not Just the Lesser of Two Evils |language=en |ssrn=3604244}}</ref> According to one psychological research study, a high degree of psychopathy is "a significant predictor" for involvement in online hate activity, while none of the other 7 potential factors examined were found to have a  [[statistical significance|statistically significant]] predictive power.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sorokowski|first1=Piotr|last2=Kowal|first2=Marta|last3=Zdybek|first3=Przemysław|last4=Oleszkiewicz|first4=Anna|date=2020-03-27|title=Are Online Haters Psychopaths? Psychological Predictors of Online Hating Behavior|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=11|pages=553|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00553|issn=1664-1078|pmc=7121332|pmid=32292374|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Political philosopher Jeffrey W. Howard considers the popular framing of hate speech as "free speech vs. other political values" as a mischaracterization. He refers to this as the "balancing model", and says it seeks to weigh the benefit of free speech against other values such as dignity and equality for historically marginalized groups. Instead, he believes that the crux of debate should be whether or not freedom of expression is inclusive of hate speech.<ref name="Howard"/> Research indicates that when people support censoring hate speech, they are motivated more by concerns about the effects the speech has on others than they are about its effects on themselves.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Lei|last1=Guo|first2=Brett G.|last2=Johnson|title=Third-Person Effect and Hate Speech Censorship on Facebook|journal=Social Media + Society|date=April 2020|volume=6|issue=2|doi=10.1177/2056305120923003|doi-access=free}}</ref> Women are somewhat more likely than men to support censoring hate speech due to greater perceived harm of hate speech, which some researchers believe may be due to gender differences in empathy towards targets of hate speech.<ref>Downs, Daniel M., and Gloria Cowan. "Predicting the importance of freedom of speech and the perceived harm of hate speech." ''Journal of Applied Social Psychology'' 42, no. 6 (2012): 1353–1375.</ref>