The law defines hate speech as any speech, gesture, writing, display, or conduct that is prohibited because it may incite some actions of violence or prejudiced action against a protected person or group or because it belittles or intimidates a protected person or group (O’Connor and Aaron 12). Outside law, hate speech refers to any form of communication that disparages an individual or a group on the basis of their religion, race, sexual orientation or some other characteristic. The law identifies a protected person or group by their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity or other characteristics that might make them susceptible to prejudice. Some countries have remedies for hate speech sufferers with redress being provided under criminal law, civil law or both. In order to clearly understand the term hate speech, our definition of the term will include the courts extended definition of the term. The courts have extended their protection in the field of hate speech; they have broadened their definition of hate speech to include: abusive, irritating, and insulting speech that promotes hatred and prejudice and in the worst cases promotes violence actions that may result to deaths (O’Connor and Aaron 22). This is the definition that will be adopted for this paper.
There are various criticisms that have been raised against the hate speech definition. Critics of the definition have argued that hate speech is a contemporary example of a tool that is used to quiet the detractors of social policies that have been inappropriately and speedily implemented to appear politically correct. The critics argue that hate speech has been defined to limit the freedom of definition that includes the freedom to speak without any form of censorship or restriction. Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom in a majority of countries; the constitutions of these countries guard the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, this includes the freedom of the press and the other forms of media communication (Lakoff 366). These clauses in the constitution are meant for the protection of the citizens from censorship, which is defined to include suppression of opinions that are expressed through written words, artistic media, and dramatic performances. Thus, the critics argue that hate speech legislations are enacted to curtail these fundamental freedoms of the citizens.
In conclusion, there is need for a legislation that protects the vulnerable persons and groups in the society. The protection of a group against hate speech is critical to make the public appreciate that a person or a group is vulnerable, has been unfavorably victimized in the past, and needs some form of protection to curb the continued harm. There are various people who have been attacked by total strangers due to their gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or gender in the past (Lakoff 346). These are heinous crimes and there is need to expand the legislation on hate speech to cover them. Hate speech is a more serious crime compared to the conventional crime since its adverse effects go beyond the first victim (Cortese 84). Criminal acts that are targeted on a person or a group due to their sex, religious affiliations, and gender among other characteristics are not simply directed on the individual; the acts target and intimidate the entire victim’s group. Thus, the definition of hate speech should include: abusive, irritating, and insulting speech that promotes hatred and prejudice and in the worst cases results into violence actions that may result to deaths of protected persons and groups.
Works Cited
Cortese, Anthony. Opposing Hate Speech. New York, NY: Praeger, 2005. Lakoff, George.
Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
O’Connor, Rory and Cutler, Aaron. Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America’s Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives. New York, NY: AlterNet Books, 2009.