Hate Speech Legislation is too Complicated. Let’s Get Rid of It.
What is the point of legislating hate speech?
The idea may be positive at first glance, aligning with progressive views and helping to continue the development of a fair and just society.
And, the psychological effects of hate speech and hate crimes on members of targeted groups are well documented. The term ‘spirit murder’ has been coined by academics examining the distress, emotional symptoms, restrictions on movement and association and self-esteem. Legislation could be seen as a clear response to groups that have had these experiences.
But upon closer inspection, there are significant limitations with hate crime policies and legislation. It may be ineffective as a result.
So Why Legislate?
Governments that enact restrictions on hate speech operate under the assumption that hate speech inflicts some level of harm on a group of people. Because of this, some feel governments must interject and meaningfully respond through legislation. Regulating hate speech is typically used as a mechanism to satisfy multiple considerations:
- To respond meaningfully to groups who have experienced discrimination, assault and other forms of victimization on the basis of uncontrollable attributes (e.g., race, gender identity, ethnicity);
- To symbolically demonstrate the values a government subscribes to and build a ‘culture of civility’; and
- To show governments are responsive to the perception of groups that have been historically oppressed.
The arguments in favour of restricting language is the correlation to harm. The offended must feel some level of harm in order for any Legislation to be an effective means of combating hate speech. For example, hate speech can encompass a person shouting obscenities towards a race, gender or ethnicity in the middle of the street, not making eye contact with anyone. As well, it can encompass a person telling another they will inflict a level of harm towards them for being of a certain race, gender or ethnicity. This can cause psychological distress, trauma and harm.
But there are many flaws to these arguments.
