Usually, hate speech is viewed as a binary decision. Attempting to detect and sanction it requires precise differentiation to justify whether a communication is hate speech. Hate speech is any expression of discrimination that involves hate toward other people. A wide range of expressions is captured under this statement, and hence difficult to identify its lawful restrictions under international human rights law. Therefore, hate speech is used for expressions of hatred, abuse, harassment, discrimination, insults, inciting violence, and intimidation against people that fall into a specific category (Bahador, 2020). All these elements defame the party’s reputation on the receiving end.
In some cases, individuals may communicate hate speech that is not defamatory but express their freedom of speech. Such examples of non-defamatory hate speech include matters of truth on government operations, demonstrations against harmful cultural practices, and workplace corruption. However, this may have a wrong impression on either them or the other party despite the statement being true and containing proof. This paper expounds more on non-defamatory hate speech and its negative implications.
According to international human rights law, some severe forms of hate speech supposed to be prohibited include national advocacy, violence, hostility, and religious or racial discrimination. Governments are advised against abusing hate speech legislation that will discourage the participation of citizens in lawful democratic matters involving the country’s general interest (Goguen, 2013). Communication that may seem like hate speech and yet pose no defamatory elements is when a group or an individual has concerns about their government and its operations. This may include issues such as the education system, security in the country, and even support for marginalized communities. One may express his concerns based on these matters in a hate speech manner indicating how ineffective the government works, but it’s the truth and hence not defamatory in any way. Though not defaming, such communication tends not to follow the suitable protocol in addressing topics before communicating them to the public. The government systems may be ineffective, but one needs to use their freedom of expression to find solutions to such situations and provide recommendations rather than condemnation.
In significant cases, hate speech tends to be a divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’ individuals. Different groups in our communities practice different cultural practices. Some practices can be accommodated by the larger society, while others tend to draw a line due to their negative impacts on those involved. In this case, one may communicate hate speech towards the harmful practice of another culture. This may be regarded as not defamatory, for example, female genital mutilation, discrimination, or gender oppression (Waldron, 2012). That does not defame the culture of the other community, but such hate speech is wrong when not followed with the right actions and education to the people practicing the culture on why the culture adopted is harmful.
Lastly, corruption has wasted most working organizations. A hate speech on people involved in crime in an organization and providing evidence of the same is neither classified under defamatory hate speech (Barendt, 2019). There is a need to raise discrimination, harassment, and poor working conditions linked to workplace corruption for a better chance. However, some of these hate speeches provided with goodwill may result in disagreements and violence, resulting in some workers losing their jobs.
In conclusion, only some communications containing hate speech are good. One has freedom of expression, and some may give their complaints in the form of hate speech for actions to be taken and hence not defamatory. However, one must consider the consequences that may result after addressing such issues with other individuals and the possible ways instead of choosing the hate speech method.
References
Babak Bahador, R. (2020). Classifying and identifying the intensity of hate speech. Items. Web.
David Goguen. (2013). Defamation of character or free speech? www.alllaw.com. Web.
Eric- Barendt. (2019). What is the harm of hate speech? SpringerLink. Web.
Waldron, J. (2012). Hate speech and political legitimacy. The Content and Context of Hate Speech, 329-340. Web.