Saturday, February 23, 2019
A Right to Hate?
A white supremacist wants to advocate his political views on a billboard in a majority African-American neighborhood. A neo-Nazi group wants to march in a city with a large number of Holocaust survivors. A conservative Christian passes out literature denouncing the legitimacy of gay marriage outside of a wedding chapel. Are these actions examples of hate speech? If so, should they be legally permitted according to Mill? Is he correct? What should the state do about speech that discriminates or preaches intolerance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These are examples of hate speech because these groups' actions are isolating specific groups whom which they disagree with and are showing hateful actions towards these groups. White supremacists displaying hurtful language towards African-Americans in their neighborhood, Neo-Nazis marching against Holocaust survivors, and conservative Christians denouncing gay marriage are all examples of hate speech because these groups are showing hostility to groups of whom they disagree with through harmful language and actions. This applies to one of the main objections that Mill faces in his argument which is that we shouldn’t be worried if it is true or false, but if it is helpful or dangerous, for example, religion. If religion is helpful to society then it should not really matter if people practice or not. However, if religion is hurting society, then that religion should not be allowed to be practiced. Mills response to this was that since humans are fallible, then we by default are fallible if something is harmful or helpful. Part of our fallibility is that we may believe we are suppressing a false opinion, but in reality, we could suppress a true one. If the opinion is true, its suppression deprives society of the truth, however, it is impossible for us fallible humans to know for certain if an opinion is true or false. Mill believes that since humans are unable to make the correct choice, it would be wrong to make hateful actions towards others illegal. He says this because, in order to fully understand the truth/opinion, you must not suppress false opinions, because those false/clashing opinions help us understand the truth that we are trying to prove. So intern, these hate crimes against specific groups are only allowing us to see the truth, which is that hate crimes are wrong. If we did not have these different groups express their opinions towards these other groups then humans would have no foundation to build on morality and what is considered morally correct. Mill believes that we need contrary opinions to understand the truth, and although hateful, these different opinions expressed by these groups show just that, while allowing us to collectively grow as a society to decide what is correct and what should be legal and illegal.
ReplyDeleteAccording to google, hate speech is “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation”. Under this definition, the aforementioned examples are without a doubt hate speech. The white supremacist is attacking minority races by claiming that minorities are inferior to the white majority. Similarly, the Neo-Nazis express their hatred towards the Jewish population by marching near Holocaust survivors. Finally, the radical Christian express that gay couples do not deserve the same rights as straight couples. These all constitute hate speech in their own terrible manner.
ReplyDeleteUsing Mill’s beliefs, I think there are several arguments that could be mad. First using his ideology of suppressing opinions. Assuming that being anti-discrimination is a truthful opinion, Mill would still argue that suppressing hate speech shouldn’t be done because by hearing hate speech and, in this hypothetical (only hypothetical because we can technically never know what is the truth) scenario, having it challenge the more widely held opinion, we strengthen our understanding of the truth through defending anti-discrimination and deconstructing hate speech.
Secondly, Mill consistently argues that only actions that hurt other can be suppressed. Hate speech doesn’t cause direct harm and therefore shouldn’t be suppressed. At the same time, there are two sides to the coin, because one could easily make the argument that hate speech mental assaults its recipients. This emotional traumatization would most definitely constitute harm. Moreover, hate speech inspires other to harm the targeted group resulting in another way it harms society. I think ultimately, the argument that through one way or another hate speech hurts people is very strong because I think the probability that at the very least just one person is harmed in either of the two previously mentioned ways is extremely high. Thus, Mill would ultimately conclude that we should suppress hate speech because it harms members of society even if not suppressing it further our understanding of the truth because his first premise is that any actions that hurts another person ought to be restricted.
While these examples may be some of the most egregious examples of hateful speech imaginable, they are constitutionally protected, and according to Mill, they should remain that way. This comes from the ‘harm to others’ principle. Mill creates this ideology by arguing that something, whether it be an action or belief, should be legally allowed in a society and should not be restricted unless it causes harm to others. Direct harm to others must be physical for it to be considered a criminal action, but indirect harm ought to be permissible to do the fact that speech without a call for action shall never be infringed upon. According to Miriam Webster, the term hate speech as fined by the following; “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people”, so this can include any form of speech that targets a minority group. For example, speech that targets a particular race, religion, or sexual orientation. Despite this fact, legally speaking, it is currently legal in the United States to engage in ‘hate speech’ because it does not exist as a legal term. I agree with Mill here, because there is no direct harm being done by the speaker to any member of society done by hateful speech. Additionally, people who engage in this type of speech do often face repercussions for their words in the form of protests and boycotts. Yes, hate speech is directed towards individuals and the groups they belong to, but there is no actual harm involved. By using Mills’ ‘harm to others’ principle, it’s quite evident that he would agree with the notion that hate speech is classified as free speech, censoring ‘hate speech’ would be an act of government overreach, and it wouldn’t help fight bigotry in the long run
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, and the opinion of most in the United States, would say that the examples given in the prompt would be examples of hate speech because it is oppressing the people they are attacking and they are putting one down. However, some may argue that these forms of protest fall under freedom of expression and that these people have the right to speak like this in front of a group of people, of course as long as no harm is done. Emotional or physical harm are two very polarizing topics for people to use to define harm in hate speech and I believe that this is the reason why we still see angry protests and violent protests today. J.S Mill would look at the examples said above, suggest a mature, philosophical debate about the topics of neo-nazi-ism, black pride, gay marriage, and open it to both sides to conclude who is “right” and who is “wrong”. J.S.Mill would think that these people are going on the wrong away about expressing their opinions because it only does harm and no good for the society because it only makes people aggravated. Mill believes that people who hold two sides of an topic should conduct a formal debate to see who is correct, and over the years open up debate again, and again for optimal political correctness. In a way, J.S Mill is correct; however, it is very difficult to get a bunch of white supremacists and black lives matters leaders in one room to have a civil debate over who is more human, other than tackling the issue of racism itself. I find Mill’s ways to be optimistic and ideal. The reason we don’t see debates instead of protests because these people are not civil enough to perform said debate. Instead, the state should be involved to represent the parties and concluded that betters society and makes both sides happy.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, these are definitely examples of hate speech. The Oxford Dictionary defines hate speech as “Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.” Targeting someone based any of these attributes is hate speech, and should be treated as such. Mill argues that people have a right to express their opinion as long as it is not causing physical harm to other people, and they should be allowed to exercise that right as much as they want. However, Mill does not say anything about the objective morality of these actions. It is not moral to target someone based on their race, religion or sexual preference. Just because people have the right to do horrible things does not mean that they should do horrible things. There is a rule called “the golden rule” in many religions and in most of society. The rule states that you should treat others how you want to be treated. This universal rule is important to remember so that there is as little hate speech as possible. Mill is therefore incorrect, because the right to exercise one’s own opinion is very situational and people do not need to use this argument as an excuse to target someone. The state should do something about hate speech, because while it is not a violation of the 1st amendment it is still immoral, and deserves to be treated as a crime no matter who does it.
ReplyDeleteHate speech is any speech, writing, or assembly action targeted with malicious intent towards an “other”. The examples presented are certainly examples of hate speech as they show clear malicious intent gathering in writing, speech, or assembly. The question is whether the state should declare this kind of speech, writing, or assembly illegal. The argument John Stuart Mill uses in defense of free speech is the “harm to others principle” – the principle that something should only be prohibited if it directly harms someone other than yourself. Actions that physically affect others, such as murder or assault, would obviously fall under the definition of harm, and as such are illegal. The problem arises when we must determine if the emotional and psychological effect hate speech directly generates would fall under the “harm to others principle”. Mill shies away from answering this question, as he never brings up this type of harm when discussing his principles. Because of this, we cannot directly garner whether he would make hate speech legal in society, as we do not know how he would weigh the emotional and psychological effect it causes to others. A secondary, somewhat indirect effect can occur from hate speech, however. Hate speech could incite violence towards the “other” that it targets, and its intent could be to incite violence. In this regard, Mill is clear. He says that this kind of speech would violate the “harm to others principle” and thus should be outlawed (one should not be able to shout “fire” in a crowded theater). For speech that does not cause violence and does not have an intent to cause violence, however, Mill is unclear in whether emotional and psychological effect constitutes harm. Thus, we do not how he would view the potential legality of that speech and whether it would violate the “harm to others principle”. In regards to my own beliefs, I would follow an ideology that hate speech should be illegal as I do consider the emotional and psychological effect of it to be harmful to others. However, pragmatically, I do not think there is a way to outlaw hate speech. Multiple people have different interpretations of what is and is not hate speech and the definitions are often evolving. How much does society need to change for particular language to be hate speech? Where are the lines between humor, offense, and hate? These questions are impossible to answer objectively, and because of it, I do not think one could even effectively implement laws against hate speech. In other words, if I were a politician, I would campaign to make hate speech illegal, but once I was in office, I would not even try to make it illegal.
ReplyDeleteIn what I believe to be the opinion of most people in the United States, including myself, the actions described in the prompt are without a doubt examples of hate speech. According to Google, hate speech is “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.” Each case in the prompt is by definition, hate speech, for targeting the race of one group, the religion of another, and the sexual orientation of the last. Each of these actions puts down one group and displays superiority towards another. But in John Stuart Mill’s opinion, all of these acts should be perfectly legal. According to J.S. Mill’s ‘Harm to Others Principle,” free speech should be protected because it does not cause physical harm to anyone or any group of people. But in reality, I disagree with J.S. Mill’s perspective because speaking out against and belittling of a person or group does harm them, just maybe not physically. Hate speech such as described in the prompt can leave emotional and mental harm, and although this may not seem as important, it is! When I think of hate speech, I believe it should be illegal because of the emotional and mental effects language and actions could cause to a person. In his evaluation of free speech, J.S. Mill believes it should not be outlawed because he does not consider any aspects of harm besides the physical harm hate speech causes. I think the state should not follow the ‘Harm to Others Principle’ and instead consider the effects of hate speech besides physical.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActs such as those above are clearly malicious with intent to discriminate specific groups of people. Currently, in the United States, hate speech is unregulated, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is constitutional under the First Amendment. However, there should be some form of structural limit as to how this type of speech can affect the process of truth seeking. Mill argues that these harmful activities are perfectly justified under the “harm to others principle” which states that as long as the conduct does not harm the interest of others, the law should not regulate it. The problem, however, comes when determining what is “harm to others”. Since Mill claims that unpopular opinions should not be suppressed, it becomes extremely difficult to consider whether emotional and psychological harms created by hate speech are valid under the principle. Furthermore, Mill does not go into details regarding the effect of hate speech on truth seeking which means that the intent to discriminate can potentially erode the fundamental “free space” to begin truth seeking. Hate speech is dangerous because it can discourage and alienate certain voices which creates the structural conditions for society to misconstrue truth. This is especially true for minority groups as leaders such as Trump can utilize this silence to manufacture fantasies to appeal to his racist base. Mill fails to give solutions to this problem and even provides support by saying, “The interference of society to overrule judgement...must be grounded on general presumption which may be altogether wrong” (74). Although the state regulating free speech can be harmful to productive dialogue, it is net worse to create a space that inherently gives power to certain people to purposely exclude others. I think that there should be some regulations, however, it is difficult to develop a fitting set of law that only prohibits the dangerous parts of hate speech. There are also numerous interpretation as to what constitutes as hate speech. These fundamental questions makes it impossible to regulate hate speech.
ReplyDeleteAccording to US Legal, hate speech is defined as a “communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence”. Thus, the sole reason hate speech exists is to cause harm to others. Since neo-Nazi’s and white supremacists sole purpose while protesting is to harm another group. This is by definition hate speech. Mill’s ideology of not suppressing opinions allows for this expression or opinions. According to his argument, even blatantly false opinions should be shared and not suppressed. This causes the truth to lose meaning. In fact, we don’t even know if opinions are true. All sides must be debated out. I don’t agree with this principle in every situation, especially with hate speech. Even though this is an example of exercising the liberty of having one’s own opinion and expressing it, it directly infringing upon someone else’s safety and wellbeing. The fundamental definition of hate speech is words that “provoke violence”. For example, look towards the Nazi’s. What started out as hate speech led to the spreading of an ideology that led to the mass genocide of the targeted group. Words hold meaning. Using your words to hurt someone else is unjust and has negative consequences. I believe that since it infringes on other people’s liberties, the government should be able to restrict targeted hate speech since it can lead to such dire consequences. However, there is a bright-line between what they can and cannot regulate. They cannot restrict conversations and debate, but should be able to prevent rallies or ads that promote violence towards a minority.
ReplyDeleteThe given examples identify with “hate speech” considering each is prejudice, and, obviously, with intent to hate. By definition, “hate speech” is abuse which is the same as harm, so yes harming others should be and technically is illegal. Even though J.S. Mill strongly encourages the idea of listening and debating opinions, it is evident that their (neo-Nazis, homophobes, white supremists, etc.) purpose is to put down another group, so why here them out when their opinion is already known and only threatens a persons well being? Mill also explains that the government must let people act for themselves in order for humans to exercise their choice, but someone who expresses opinion in order to oppress and antagonize others should not have a right to “exercise choice” considering the intentions are to cause harm to others. If it is evident that the opinion/belief has no other justification than to hurt/oppress someone then there is no need to let them continue if only bad things can come from it. Mills ideals make sense when looking at it from the perspective of the party who wants to promote peace, not from the perspective of those intending to cause chaos. Even if the opposing parties did civilly express ideas and opinions, which is unlikely to ever happen, there would still be the party whose purpose is to end the other (anti-semetic vs a jew, a racist vs African American, etc). I do not think there is a way to legalize hate speech considering there is varieties of different degrees thats considered hate speech, but if it is as aggressive, for example, as the K.K.K, which hurts one’s well-being then that should be illegal.
ReplyDelete