Editing Hate speech

{{Short description|Speech that expresses hatred towards individuals or groups}}
{{distinguish|profanity}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2020}} 
{{Discrimination sidebar |Manifestations}}

'''Hate speech''' is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the ''[[Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary|Cambridge Dictionary]]'' as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech|title=hate speech|website=dictionary.cambridge.org}}</ref> The ''Encyclopedia of the American Constitution'' states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".<ref>John T. Nockleby, "Hate Speech," in ''Encyclopedia of the American Constitution'',  eds. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, vol. 3 (2nd ed., Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, pp. 1277–1279);  quoted by {{cite journal |title=Library 2.0 and the Problem of Hate Speech |first1=Margaret |last1=Brown-Sica |first2=Jeffrey |last2=Beall |url=http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n02/brown-sica_m01.html#_edn2 |journal=Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship |volume=9 |issue=2 |date=2008 |access-date=June 22, 2021}}</ref> There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

There has been much debate over [[freedom of speech]], hate  speech, and hate speech legislation.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/91098/frontmatter/9780521191098_frontmatter.pdf |title=Herz, Michael and Peter Molnar, eds. 2012. ''The content and context of hate speech''. Cambridge University Press. |access-date=31 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180713011547/http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/91098/frontmatter/9780521191098_frontmatter.pdf |archive-date=13 July 2018 }}</ref> The laws of some countries describe [[hatred|hate]] speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that [[Incitement|incite]] [[violence]] or [[Prejudice|prejudicial]] actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or that disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify protected groups based on certain characteristics.<ref name="legislation.gov.uk">{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/146|title=Criminal Justice Act 2003|website=www.legislation.gov.uk|access-date=2017-01-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report|url=http://www.ypinaction.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Activists_Guide_English_nov_14_2010.pdf|title=An Activist's Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles|date=14 November 2010|page=125|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104093608/http://www.ypinaction.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Activists_Guide_English_nov_14_2010.pdf|archive-date=4 January 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kinney |first=Terry A. |title=Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms |journal=The International Encyclopedia of Communication |date= June 5, 2008 |doi=10.1002/9781405186407.wbiech004 |isbn=978-1405186407}}</ref> In some countries, [[Hate speech in the United States|including the United States]], what is usually labelled "hate speech" is constitutionally protected.<ref>{{cite web |title=CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech |url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190724041326/https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/ |archive-date=24 July 2019 |access-date=12 April 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Turley |first=Jonathan |date=2023-02-25 |title=Yes, hate speech is constitutionally protected |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3873943-yes-hate-speech-is-constitutionally-protected/ |access-date=2024-09-24 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>Stone, Geoffrey R. (1994). [https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3246&context=journal_articles "Hate Speech and the U.S. Constitution."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180427045441/https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F&httpsredir=1&article=3246&context=journal_articles |date=27 April 2018 }} ''East European Constitutional Review'', vol. 3, pp. 78–82.</ref><ref name="volokh"/> In some other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under [[Private law|civil law]], [[criminal law]], or both.

Hate speech is generally accepted to be one of the prerequisites for [[Atrocity crime|mass atrocities]] such as [[genocide]].<ref name="Gordon2017">{{cite book |last1=Gordon |first1=Gregory S. |title=Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition |date=2017 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |ssrn=3230050 |isbn=978-0-19-061270-2 |language=en |access-date=15 January 2022 |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3230050}}</ref> [[Incitement to genocide]] is an extreme form of hate speech, and has been prosecuted in [[international courts]] such as the [[International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda]].

== History (USA)==
{{Globalize|section|United States|date=August 2024}}
Starting in the 1940s and 50s, various American civil rights groups responded to the atrocities of [[World War II]] by advocating for restrictions on hateful speech targeting groups on the basis of race and religion.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Walker|first=Samuel|title=Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy|publisher=University of Nebraska Press|year=1994|location=Lincoln|page=79}}</ref> These organizations used group libel as a legal framework for describing the violence of hate speech and addressing its harm. In his discussion of the history of criminal libel, scholar [[Jeremy Waldron]] states that these laws helped "vindicate public order, not just by preempting violence, but by upholding against attack a shared sense of the basic elements of each person's status, dignity, and reputation as a citizen or member of society in good standing".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Waldron|first=Jeremy|title=The Harm in Hate Speech|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2012|page=47}}</ref> A key legal victory for this view came in 1952 when group libel law was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in [[Beauharnais v. Illinois]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Waldron|first=Jeremy|title=The Harm in Hate Speech|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2012|page=41}}</ref> However, the group libel approach lost ground due to a rise in support for individual rights within civil rights movements during the 60s.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Walker|first=Samuel|title=Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy|publisher=University of Nebraska Press|year=1994|location=Lincoln|page=78}}</ref> Critiques of group defamation laws are not limited to defenders of individual rights. Some legal theorists, such as [[Critical Race Theory|critical race theorist]] Richard Delgado, support legal limits on hate speech, but claim that defamation is too narrow a category to fully counter hate speech. Ultimately, Delgado advocates a legal strategy that would establish a specific section of [[Tort|tort law]] for responding to racist insults, citing the difficulty of receiving redress under the existing legal system.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Delgado|first=Richard|title=Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment|publisher=Westview Press|editor-last=Matsuda|editor-first=Mari J.|page=90}}</ref>

==Internet==
{{Main|Online hate speech}}
The rise of the [[internet]] and [[social media]] has presented a new medium through which hate speech can spread. Hate speech on the internet can be traced all the way back to its initial years, with a 1983 [[bulletin board system]] created by [[Neo-Nazism|neo-Nazi]] [[George P. Dietz|George Dietz]] considered the first instance of hate speech online.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Levin |first=Brian |date=2002 |title=Cyberhate: A Legal and Historical Analysis of Extremists' Use of Computer Networks in America |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764202045006004 |journal=American Behavioral Scientist |language=en |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=958–988 |doi=10.1177/0002764202045006004 |s2cid=142998931 |issn=0002-7642|url-access=subscription }}</ref> As the internet evolved over time hate speech continued to spread and create its footprint; the first hate speech website [[Stormfront (website)|Stormfront]] was published in 1996, and hate speech has become one of the central challenges for social media platforms.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Meddaugh |first1=Priscilla Marie |last2=Kay |first2=Jack |date=2009-10-30 |title=Hate Speech or "Reasonable Racism?" The Other in Stormfront |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08900520903320936 |journal=Journal of Mass Media Ethics |language=en |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=251–268 |doi=10.1080/08900520903320936 |s2cid=144527647 |issn=0890-0523|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

The structure and nature of the internet contribute to both the creation and persistence of hate speech online. The widespread use and access to the internet gives hate mongers an easy way to spread their message to wide audiences with little cost and effort. According to the [[International Telecommunication Union]], approximately 66% of the world population has access to the internet.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Measuring digital development: Facts and Figures 2022 |url=https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx |access-date=2023-10-27 |website=ITU |language=en-US}}</ref> Additionally, the pseudo-anonymous nature of the internet imboldens many to make statements constituting hate speech that they otherwise wouldn't for fear of social or real life repercussions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Citron|first1=Danielle Keats|last2=Norton|first2=Helen L.|date=2011|title=Intermediaries and Hate Speech: Fostering Digital Citizenship for Our Information Age|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1764004|journal=Boston University Law Review|location=Rochester, NY|volume=91|ssrn=1764004}}</ref> While some governments and companies attempt to combat this type of behavior by leveraging [[Real-name system|real name systems]], difficulties in verifying identities online, public opposition to such policies, and sites that don't enforce these policies leave large spaces for this behavior to persist.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Google reverses 'real names' policy, apologizes |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-reverses-real-names-policy-apologizes/ |access-date=2023-11-25 |website=ZDNET |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2012-08-23 |title=Online real-name system unconstitutional |url=https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/11/113_118115.html |access-date=2023-11-25 |website=koreatimes |language=en}}</ref>

Because the internet crosses national borders, comprehensive government regulations on online hate speech can be difficult to implement and enforce. Governments who want to regulate hate speech contend with issues around lack of jurisdiction and conflicting viewpoints from other countries.<ref name="yahoo_case">{{Cite journal |last=Banks |first=James |date=2010 |title=Regulating hate speech online |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2010.522323 |journal=International Review of Law, Computers & Technology |language=en |volume=24 |issue=3 |pages=233–239 |doi=10.1080/13600869.2010.522323 |s2cid=61094808 |issn=1360-0869|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In an early example of this, the case of ''[[Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme]]'' had a French court hold [[Yahoo!]] liable for allowing Nazi memorabilia auctions to be visible to the public. Yahoo! refused to comply with the ruling and ultimately won relief in a U.S. court which found that the ruling was unenforceable in the U.S.<ref name="yahoo_case" /> Disagreements like these make national level regulations difficult, and while there are some [[#Hate speech laws|international efforts and laws]] that attempt to regulate hate speech and its online presence, as with most international agreements the implementation and interpretation of these treaties varies by country.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gagliardone |first1=Iginio |url=https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231/PDF/233231eng.pdf.multi |title=Countering Online Hate Speech |last2=Gal |first2=Danit |last3=Alves |first3=Thiago |last4=Martinez |first4=Gabriela |publisher=[[UNESCO Publishing]] |year=2015 |isbn=978-92-3-100105-5 |location=[[Paris]] |pages=7–15 |format=PDF |access-date=27 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220313213251/https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231/PDF/233231eng.pdf.multi |archive-date=13 March 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Much of the regulation regarding online hate speech is performed voluntarily by individual companies. Many major tech companies have adopted [[terms of service]] which outline allowed content on their platform, often banning hate speech. In a notable step for this, on 31 May 2016, [[Facebook]], [[Google]], [[Microsoft]], and [[Twitter]], jointly agreed to a [[European Union]] code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their services within 24 hours.<ref name="guardian-euhatespeech">{{Cite news|title=Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft sign EU hate speech code|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=7 June 2016|date=2016-05-31|last1=Hern|first1=Alex}}</ref> Techniques employed by these companies to regulate hate speech include user reporting, [[Artificial intelligence|Artificial Intelligence]] flagging, and manual review of content by employees.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hatano |first=Ayako |date=2023-10-23 |title=Regulating Online Hate Speech through the Prism of Human Rights Law: The Potential of Localised Content Moderation |journal=The Australian Year Book of International Law Online |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=127–156 |doi=10.1163/26660229-04101017 |issn=2666-0229|doi-access=free }}</ref> Major search engines like [[Google Search]] also tweak their algorithms to try and suppress hateful content from appearing in their results.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schulze |first=Elizabeth |date=2019-02-04 |title=EU says Facebook, Google and Twitter are getting faster at removing hate speech online |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/facebook-google-and-twitter-are-getting-faster-at-removing-hate-speech-online-eu-finds--.html |access-date=2023-11-25 |website=CNBC |language=en}}</ref> However, despite these efforts hate speech remains a persistent problem online. According to a 2021 study by the [[Anti-Defamation League]] 33% of Americans were the target of identity based harassment in the preceding year, a statistic which has not noticeably shifted downwards despite increasing self regulation by companies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Online Hate and Harassment: The American Experience 2021 |url=https://www.adl.org/resources/report/online-hate-and-harassment-american-experience-2021 |access-date=2023-11-25 |website=ADL |language=en}}</ref>

== State-sanctioned hate speech ==
{{Expand section|date=November 2021}}
{{main|Hate speech actions by country}}
A few [[State (polity)|state]]s, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Rwanda Hutu factions, actors in the [[Yugoslav Wars]] and Ethiopia have been described as spreading official hate speech or [[incitement to genocide]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cotler |first1=Irwin |editor1-first=Michael |editor1-last=Herz |editor2-first=Peter |editor2-last=Molnar |title=State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide |journal=The Content and Context of Hate Speech |date=2012 |pages=430–455 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781139042871.030|isbn=978-1139042871 }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |title=Saudi Arabia Rebuffs Trump Administration's Requests to Stop Teaching Hate Speech in Schools |url=https://time.com/5780130/saudi-arabia-hate-speech-schools/ |magazine=Time |date=10 February 2020 |last1=Dozier |first1=Kimberly}}</ref><ref name="WPF_world_watches_Abiy_loses_it">{{cite web | last1 = de Waal | first1 = Alex | author-link = Alex de Waal | title= The world watches as Abiy loses it – and risks losing Ethiopia, too. | website= [[World Peace Foundation]] |date = 2021-09-17 | url = https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2021/09/17/the-world-watches-as-abiy-loses-it-and-risks-losing-ethiopia-too/ | access-date = 2021-11-17 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210921050423/https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2021/09/17/the-world-watches-as-abiy-loses-it-and-risks-losing-ethiopia-too |archive-date= 2021-09-21 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Hate speech laws==
{{Main|Hate speech laws by country}}
{{Censorship sidebar}}
After World War II, [[Germany]] criminalized ''[[Volksverhetzung]]'' ("incitement of popular hatred") to prevent resurgence of [[Nazism]]. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany. Most European countries have likewise implemented various laws and regulations regarding hate speech, and the European Union's Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA<ref name="32008F0913">{{CELEX|id=32008F0913|text=Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law}}</ref> requires member states to criminalize hate crimes and speech (though individual implementation and interpretation of this framework varies by state).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Combating hate speech and hate crime |url=https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-hate-speech-and-hate-crime_en |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=commission.europa.eu |language=en}}</ref>{{refn|{{CELEX|id=32008F0913|tab=LSU|text=Document summary}} of Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA<ref name="32008F0913"/>}}

International human rights laws from the [[United Nations Human Rights Committee]] have been protecting freedom of expression, and one of the most fundamental documents is the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] (UDHR) drafted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|last=Nations|first=United|title=Universal Declaration of Human Rights|url=https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights|access-date=2021-12-08|website=United Nations|language=en}}</ref> Article 19 of the UDHR states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."<ref name=":0" />

While there are fundamental laws in place designed to protect freedom of expression, there are also multiple international laws that expand on the UDHR and pose limitations and restrictions, specifically concerning the safety and protection of individuals.<ref>{{Citation|last=Altman|first=Andrew|title=Freedom of Expression and Human Rights Law: The Case of Holocaust Denial|date=2012-05-31|url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236282.001.0001/acprof-9780199236282-chapter-2|work=Speech and Harm|pages=24–49|editor-last=Maitra|editor-first=Ishani|publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236282.003.0002|isbn=978-0-19-923628-2|access-date=2021-12-08|editor2-last=McGowan|editor2-first=Mary Kate|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

* The [[Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination]] (CERD) was the first to address hate speech and the need to establish legislation prohibiting inflammatory types of language.<ref>{{Citation|last=Mendel|first=Toby|editor1-first=Michael|editor1-last=Herz|editor2-first=Peter|editor2-last=Molnar|title=Does International Law Provide for Consistent Rules on Hate Speech?|work=The Content and Context of Hate Speech|year=2012|pages=417–429|place=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/cbo9781139042871.029|isbn=978-1139042871}}</ref>
** The CERD addresses hate speech through the [[International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination]] (ICERD) and monitors its implementation by State parties.<ref>{{Cite web|title=OHCHR {{!}} Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination|url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cerd/pages/cerdindex.aspx|access-date=2021-12-08|website=www.ohchr.org}}</ref>
* Article 19(3) of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR) permits restrictions on the human right of freedom of expression only when provided by law, and when necessary to protect "rights or reputations of others", or for "protection of national security or of public order (''ordre public''), or of public health or morals".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=OHCHR {{!}} International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx|access-date=2021-12-08|website=www.ohchr.org}}</ref>
* Article 20(2) of the ICCPR prohibits national, religious, or racial hatred that incites violence, discrimination, or hostility.<ref name=":1" />

Most developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Canada,<ref>{{Cite canlaw|short title  =Criminal Code|abbr =RSC|year =1985|chapter =C-46|section =319|link =https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html}}</ref> Denmark, France, Germany, India, Ireland,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-10-24 |title=Dáil passes hate crime legislation |url=https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2024/1023/1477129-dail-hate-crime/ |access-date=2024-10-24 |website=RTE}}</ref> South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.<ref name="Howard">{{cite journal|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343|doi-access=free|title=Free Speech and Hate Speech|year=2019|last1=Howard|first1=Jeffrey W.|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=22|issue=1 |pages=93–109}}</ref> The United States does not have hate speech laws, because the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] has repeatedly ruled that they violate the guarantee to [[freedom of speech]] contained in the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]].<ref name="volokh">{{cite news|last1=Volokh|first1=Eugene|date=5 May 2015|title=No, there's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/|access-date=25 June 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. The laws designed to protect public order require that a higher threshold be violated, so they are not often enforced. For example, a 1992 study found that only one person was prosecuted in Northern Ireland in the preceding 21 years for violating a law against incitement to religious violence. The laws meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bell|first1=Jeannine|title=Restraining the heartless: racist speech and minority rights.|journal=Indiana Law Journal|date=Summer 2009|volume=84|pages=963–979|ssrn=1618848|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1618848|access-date=21 February 2021}}</ref>

===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>

== See also ==
* [[Antilocution]]
* [[Genocide justification]]
* [[Incitement to terrorism]]
* [[Malinformation]]
* [[Psychology of genocide]]
* [[Reverse discrimination]]
* [[Risk factors for genocide]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20190331052010/http://tandis.odihr.pl/?p=home TANDIS (Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Information System), developed by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20171104023326/https://www.ericdigests.org/1993/drug.htm Reconciling Rights and Responsibilities of Colleges and Students: Offensive Speech, Assembly, Drug Testing and Safety]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20171022101020/https://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/conduct.htm From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in Higher Education]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20190402113421/https://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/sexual.htm Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191129032249/https://www.thefire.org/ The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]
* [https://www.academia.edu/33555930/Activities_to_tackle_Hate_speech_SecEd_Magazine Activities to tackle Hate speech]
* [http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip//sbh.html Survivor bashing – bias motivated hate crimes]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192804/http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/hate-speech-reflections.pdf "Striking the right balance"] by [[Agnès Callamard]], for [[Article 19]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191018004033/https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf Hate speech], a factsheet by the [[European Court of Human Rights]], 2015
* [http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/doc/cm/rec(1997)020&expmem_EN.asp Recommendation No. R (97) 20] [[Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe]] 1997

{{Internet censorship}}
{{Racism topics}}{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Hate speech| ]]
[[Category:Ableism]]
[[Category:Censorship]]
[[Category:Freedom of speech]]
[[Category:Harassment and bullying]]
[[Category:Harassment law]]
[[Category:Hate crime]]
[[Category:Homophobia]]
[[Category:LGBTQ and society]]
[[Category:Linguistic controversies]]
[[Category:Political terminology]]
[[Category:Racism]]
[[Category:Sexism]]
[[Category:Transphobia]]
[[Category:Islamophobia]]
[[Category:Authoritarianism]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Discrimination]]