Hate speech
14233
224719493
2008-07-10T03:01:08Z
Sardanaphalus
427947
updating link using [[Project:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]]
{{Discrimination (sidebar)}}
'''Hate speech''' is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[gender]], age, [[ethnicity]], [[nationality]], [[religion]], [[sexual orientation]], [[gender identity]], [[disability]], [[language]] ability, [[ideology|moral or political views]], [[socioeconomic]] [[Social class|class]], [[List of occupations|occupation]] or appearance (such as height, [[weight]], and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called [[antilocution]] and is the first point on [[Allport's scale]] which measures prejudice in a society.
==Legal aspects==
In the [[United States]], government is broadly forbidden by the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] from restricting speech. [[Jurist]]s generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can address the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against [[Slander and libel|defamation]] or incitement to [[riot]].
The fact that such laws apply only to the [[Victimology|victimization]] of specific individuals has led to disputes regarding how such laws should be regulated, if they are to be regulated at all. Among those who hold that hate speech must be regulated, it is undecided as to whether hate speech should be regulated by the state or by [[volunteer|voluntaristic]] communities. Criticisms of hate speech regulation include the view that such legislation would be unjust to those with controversial political or social views.
Where such laws exist they are limited by the constitutional rights to freedom of expression. For example, the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|German constitution]] is more restrictive, guaranteeing 'freedom of voicing one's opinion' and elsewhere restricts its misuse against the public peace. The [[Strafgesetzbuch|German Criminal Code]] specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups, and [[historical revisionism (negationism)|revisionism]], as in [[France]] under the [[Gayssot Act]], is prohibited on those grounds.
==Speech codes==<!-- This section is linked from [[Stanley Fish]] -->
{{Original research|date=September 2007}}
Various institutions in the United States and [[Europe]] began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to [[discrimination]]. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical health or [[mental health]]. There has been an increase of prohibition of terms regarded as "hate speech" based on [[socio-economic]] [[Social class|class]] in the [[United States]], same goes to [[regional]] slurs and comments in Europe. But for many North Americans and western Europeans, hate speech has become unacceptable (at least in public), immoral and sometimes, it is taboo to use certain words or discuss certain subjects they fear may be offensive or illegal. In some contexts it may also be offensive or illegal to challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria.
In addition to legal prohibition in many jurisdictions, prohibitions on the use of hate speech have been written into the bylaws of some governmental and non-governmental institutions, such as public [[university|universities]], [[trade union]]s and other organizations (see below), though the use of [[speech code]]s in public universities in the United States is illegal, because public universities, as agents of the State, are Constitutionally restricted from regulating or penalizing speech based on content. Its use is also frowned upon by many [[publishing house]]s, [[broadcasting]] organizations and [[newspaper]] groups. However, most business corporations adapted strict rules and regulations concerning verbal conduct at the workplace. These are similar to anti-hate speech laws and any employee caught in a violation of anti-hate speech codes may be dismissed. Many schools and universities have [[speech code]]s restricting some free speech. Hate speech codes are rules intended to ensure an atmosphere free from harassment and intimidation, conducive to a learning environment. Many academics have criticised these policies, arguing they are an impediment for free and uncensored discussion on controversial topics. Moreover, it is argued that the very concept of harassment is often misused and frequently cheapened, interpreting criticism (of a faith, opinion, or lifestyle) as something traumatic and harmful. Opponents of hate speech codes maintain that debate is essential to searching for the truth, and hate speech codes interfere with this mandate by silencing discussion from the very start (becoming [[censorship]]). They maintain that "harassment" should only be interpreted as a direct personal threat. They also argue that students should be confronted with perspectives they can find repulsive, as it will help strengthen their own arguments and ultimately achieve a more sturdy, well-rounded understanding of the issue.
One organization active in opposing campus speech codes is the [[Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]], or ''FIRE''.
The landmark case of in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) gave rise to a public discussion on fighting words, see also the 1918 case of Schenck.
==Laws against hate speech ==
In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a [[criminal offence]] prohibited under ''incitement to hatred'' legislation.
* In the [[United Kingdom]], [[incitement to racial hatred]] is an offence under the [[Public Order Act 1986]] with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. In 2003 the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations was introduced, followed by the 2007 Equality Act which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services based on sexual orientation.
* In [[Germany]], [[Volksverhetzung]] (incitement of hatred against a minority under certain conditions) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the [[Strafgesetzbuch]] (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the [[Sedition|seditious]] sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
* In [[Ireland]], the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."<ref>[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA19Y1989.html Irish Statute Book Database]</ref>
* In [[Canada]], advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the [[Criminal Code of Canada]] with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was ''[[R. v. Keegstra]]'' (1990).
* In [[Iceland]], the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
:: "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)
* [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], [[Australia]] has enacted the [[Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001]], which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.
* [[New Zealand]] prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
* [[France]] has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of [[anti-Semitism]], and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension. {{Fact|date=April 2007}}
* [[Singapore]] has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. In 2005, three men were convicted for hate speech under the [[Law of Singapore]].{{Fact|date=April 2007}}
* In [[Brazil]], according to the [[Constitution of Brazil|1988 Brazilian Constitution]], [[racism]] and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".<ref>[http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u107965.shtml "1988 Constitution made racism a crime with no right to bail"], [[Folha de São Paulo]], 15/04/2005.</ref> In 2006, a joint-action between the [[Brazilian Federal Police|Federal Police]] and the [[Argentina|Argentinian]] police has cracked down several hate-related websites. However, some of these sites have recently reappeared -- the users have re-created the same sites on American domain. The federal police have asked permission from the [[FBI]] to crack down these sites, but the FBI denied claiming that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] guarantees the right to any speech, even if it involves racism.
*[[Sweden]] prohibits hate speech, ''hets mot folkgrupp'', and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.<ref>Swedish Penal code, [http://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Brottsbalken%2C_andra_avdelningen#8_.C2.A7_5 ''Brottsbalken'', chapter 16, section 8.] </ref>
*[[Finland]] prohibits hate speech, ''kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan/hets mot folkgrupp'', and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.<ref>Finnish Penal code ''Rikoslaki/Strafflagen'' Chapter 11, section 8</ref>
*[[Denmark]] prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.<ref>Danish Penal code, ''Straffeloven'', section 266 B. </ref>
*[[Norway]] prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.<ref>Norwegian Penal code, ''Straffeloven'', section 135 a. </ref>
*[[Serbia]] - Serbian constitution guaranties freedom of speech, but declares that it may be restricted by law to protect rights and respectability of others. Because of inter ethnic conflicts during last decade of 20th century, Serbian authorities are very rigorous about ethnic, racial and religion based hate speech. It is processed as "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" criminal act, and punished with six months to ten years of imprisonment.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}<ref>Serbian Penal code, section 317. </ref>
* The [[Council of Europe]] has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against [[historical revisionism (political)|revisionism]] such as denial or minimization of [[genocide]]s or [[crimes against humanity]], as interpreted by the [[European Court of Human Rights]], the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (www.coe.int/ecri ) which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.
==Differing concepts of what is offensive==
{{Original research|date=September 2007}}
A central aspect of the hate speech debate is that concepts of what is acceptable and unacceptable differ, depending on eras in history and one's cultural and religious background. For example, ''personalised'' criticism of homosexuality (e.g., expressing the belief that homosexuality is "immoral" or harmful because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs) is, to some, a valid expression of one's values; to others, however, it is an expression of [[homophobia]] and is therefore [[homophobic hate speech]]. Prohibition in such cases is seen by some as an interference in their rights to express their beliefs. To others, these expressions generate harmful attitudes that potentially cause discrimination.
Furthermore, words which once "embodied" negative hate speech connotations, such as '[[queer]]' or '[[faggot (slang)|faggot]]' against homosexuals, '[[nigger (word)|nigger]]' against people of [[Africa]]n origin and '[[bitch]]' against [[women]], have themselves been "reclaimed" by their respective groups or communities, who attached more positive meanings to the words, so undermining their value to those who wish to use them in a negative sense. Significations differ following the context, as [[Judith Butler]] argues. However, others argue that such epithets demean and undermine these very individuals and so should qualify as hate speech. This point of view has been vehmently articulated by influential and well-known members of minority communities. As an example, the use of the word "nigger" by African Americans has been condemned by [[Bill Cosby]]<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1108/p09s01-coop.html?page=2</ref>, [[Rev. Jesse Jackson]]<ref>http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28357346_ITM?</ref>, [[Richard Pryor]] and [[Rev. Ben Chavis, Jr]]<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1D81F38F937A15752C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3</ref>, among others.
Concepts of what qualifies as ''hate speech'' broadened in the late twentieth century to include certain views expressed from an ideological standpoint. For instance, some feminists consider jokes about women or lesbians to be hate speech. Recently, the Canadian government added sexual orientation to the list of relevant characteristics eligible for protection from hate speech. Not everyone accepts that there is a difference between classic forms of hate speech, which were incitements to hatred or even to physical harm, and the use of language that merely shows disrespect. Some discussions between politically [[right wing]] and [[left wing]] can be viewed as hateful, even though the language used by both sides is not normally classified as hate speech.
Attitudes towards controlling hate speech cannot be reliably correlated with the traditional [[political spectrum]]. In the [[United States]], there is a general consensus that [[free speech]] values take precedence over limiting the harm caused by verbal insult. At the same time, some [[American conservatives|conservatives]] believe verbally expressed "discrimination" against religions such as [[blasphemy]], or sometimes "morally incorrect" or "unpatriotic" speech which opposes deep-seated sociocultural or religious mores, and national interest, should be condemned or prohibited, while [[liberals]] feel the same way about verbal "discrimination" against identity-related personal characteristics, such as [[homosexuality]] and [[language]] of someone who happens not to speak English (in the US and Canada when it comes to [[bilingualism]]).
==See also==
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
*[[Allport's scale]]
*[[Anti-Cult Movement]]
*[[Anti-LGBT slogans]]
*[[Anti-Semitism]]
*[[Antilocution]]
*[[Cisgender]]
*[[Colorism]]
*[[Diversity (politics)|Diversity]]
*[[Elitism]]
*[[Ethnic joke]]
*[[Freedom of speech]]
*[[Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]]
*[[Gay bashing]]
*[[Gender-neutral language in English]]
*[[harassment]]
*[[Hate crime]]
*[[Hate group]]
*[[Hate mail]]
*[[Historical revisionism (political)|Historical revisionism]]
*[[Holocaust denial]]
*[[Homophobia]]
*[[Homosexuality and religion]]
{{col-2}}
*[[International Freedom of Expression Exchange]]
*[[Islamophobia]]
*[[Misandry]]
*[[Misogyny]]
*[[Morality]]
*[[Nazism]]
*[[Personal attack]]
*[[Political correctness]]
*[[Prejudice]]
*[[Profanity]]
*[[Race baiting]]
*[[Race card]]
*[[Race war]]
*[[Racial profiling]]
*[[Racism]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Sedition]]
*[[Sexism]]
*[[Taboo]]
*[[Thoughtcrime]]
*[[Tolerance]]
*[[Volksverhetzung]]
{{col-end}}
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
* [http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/drug.htm Reconciling Rights and Responsibilities of Colleges and Students: Offensive Speech, Assembly, Drug Testing and Safety]
* [http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/conduct.htm From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in Higher Education]
* [http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/sexual.htm Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses]
* [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/165505.html#rid-165543 Canadian Hate Propaganda Laws]
* [http://www.amirbutler.com/archives/2005/08/16/46 Warning from Australia: don’t legislate against hate]
* [http://www.thefire.org The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]
* [http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip//sbh.html Survivor bashing - bias motivated hate crimes]
{{Racism topics|state=collapsed}}
[[Category:Human rights abuses]]
[[Category:Prejudice and discrimination]]
[[Category:Sexual orientation and society]]
[[Category:Philosophical concepts]]
[[Category:Political philosophy]]
[[Category:Rude behavior]]
[[af:Haatspraak]]
[[de:Hassrede]]
[[nl:Hatespeech]]
[[ja:ヘイトスピーチ]]
[[pl:Mowa nienawiści]]
[[sr:Говор мржње]]
[[fi:Kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan]]
[[sv:Hets mot folkgrupp]]