What is the real definition of hate speech? — Roke

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech

public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation

What is its true function? — Roke

To reduce violence and make ordinary people safer.

What would it be called if we weren’t caught in an Orwell-adjacent bizarro world? — Roke

A bullshit reduction measure.

The phrase itself betrays its own bad faith intentions. A technical term that means something quite different from what it says. — Roke

The problem with "hate speech" is that it very often involves hostile translation. It very often amounts to, "You don't think your speech is hateful, but I do think it is hateful and I am going to punish you for it."

Another way to think about it is to note that if "hate speech" is an honest descriptor then it isn't bad, and if it is bad then it isn't an honest descriptor. For example, if someone were using "hate speech" as an honest descriptor, then Neville Chamberlain's declaration of war against Nazi Germany was hate speech, and yet it was not bad hate speech. And if someone is using "hate speech" the way it is usually used, as "bad speech," then Chamberlain's declaration of war fails to be hate speech for some magical reason that the person cannot articulate.

So the accusation is incoherent as used. Only pacifists or quasi-pacifists are able to use a concept like "hate speech" meaningfully, and the people trying to justify their hate on the basis of "hate speech" are far from pacifists. :wink:

You’re saying this is the intended function or the actual function?

Hate speech is deviously meant to activate your amygdala, the threat detection system in your brain, in appreciation of the "if it bleeds it leads" theory of attention. Rhetorical fear, virtue and vice signaling, plays a moral role in maintaining social identity/behavior.

Fear, the ability to channel/leverage/exploit fear, is one of the greatest organizing principles/forces in the universe. Everyone is always using rhetorical fear against others and themselves to get things done.

The kissing bug and the lyme carrying tick are parasitic vectors of chronic disease. They want to take your vital god given property and destroy it by their nature. They are waiting for you outside, hidden like tiny little soldiers of war in the bush. Disgusting species do not belong in the USA. They should go back to their countries of origin. They must be avoided and destroyed at all costs.

This is my hate speech against kissing bugs and ticks and pests in general. Luckily they can't register my speech as hateful. I could love them if they didn't threaten to eat and cheat me.

We must wage war on kissing bugs and ticks. And fire ants! They'll conquer the world if we don't fight back...

When you fall asleep tonight, dream of the pests sucking away your vitality. How terrible am I to plant the seeds of these bad dreams, to cultivate an unnecessary fear about your possibly impending decline and death.

“I hate you.” (Not hate speech?)

“That girl I made out with at the bar turned out to be a tranny!” (Hate speech?)

The word “hate” is a generally well-functioning word. Intense dislike. It’s your prerogative to intensely dislike people, and to say as much.

Hate is an inherently high resolution word. Intensity corresponds with specificity. Go ahead and check within - the things you hate most are very specific. So are the people.

By contrast, the hate speech version requires a lower resolution target - and so a lower intensity dislike. The territory of hate speech is much more like out-group etiquette than hatred. Look carefully and you will see the silhouette of a large wooden horse.

Who sees it differently? Please correct me.

Who sees it differently? Please correct me. — Roke

Hate I suppose is in the eye of the beholder, to a point. I mean "I hate you" is pretty clear, and you could substitute "you" for all sorts of ethnicities, religions and whatever else and that'd be hate speech.

The question isn't so much what we call certain speech, but what we do about it. The line you cross in illegalizing certain types of speech is in suppressing free speech, so I would tend to defer to allowing more sorts of speech than others. That doesn't mean I can't otherwise be socially punished by my speech because speech has consequences.

So, whether you think anti-trans talk is hate speech or you think anti-Kirk talk is hate speech is up to you, and I don't think in either instance should someone be criminally punished for either of them. But, I do expect you might lose your job or social standing if you engage in certain types of speech (call it hate speech or not), but we can all choose which people we want to hate us by what we choose to say.

Maybe if you're really wondering what might be hate speech, instead of asking yourself whether you are hateful in saying it, ask yourself whether you expect others to hate you for saying it and then you can decide whether you want to be hated. Some people do, especially if they can get the people they already hate to hate them back even more. That's a fairly common game.

Importantly, that was not necessarily anti-trans talk at all!

I agree with you, but my interest here is not in the autistic navigation of evolving social norms.

If I recall, you are an American lawyer who will hold classical freedom of speech principles.

I am suggesting the concept of hate speech is fundamentally disingenuous. That it functions as a rhetorical pickaxe designed to chip away at the bedrock of all freedoms - freedom of speech.

I wonder to what extent the emphasis on the value of hate speech is libertarian humanism turned upside down. It may miss the spirit of civil liberties and freedom by collapsing it into a denial of the human rights and civil liberties, especially of those who are marginalised.

I know that so many oppose 'wokism'. However, this may be about allowing bullying and legitimising forms of oppression in the name of 'freedom to express hate', as a human right. This may end up in a philosophy of denial of human rights, and even a justification of oppression.

United Nations Strategy And Plan Of Action On Hate Speech

...any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.

So Chamberlain's declaration of war would be hate speech if it declared war on Germany because it was full of Germans, but not if it was because Germany invaded Poland...

And advocating the destruction of ticks because they are ticks would be hate speech. But advocating their destruction because they spread Lyme Disease isn't.

The difference is in the relevance of the criteria for the expressed hate. Hate speech intends to "other" particular groups because of their status as a group, not because of what they have done. It is an attack on identity, not on activity. Hate speech is intended to incite violence against a group, not to admonish a behaviour.

Now comes the bit were folk point to fringe cases in the hope of showing some inconsistency in the very idea. The existence of borderline cases doesn't invalidate a useful distinction any more than the existence of dawn and dusk invalidates the difference between day and night.

People - who won’t say what they mean - will decide the meaning of what you say. — Roke

It took me a few seconds to find the UN document. Who is it that "will not say what they mean"?

Those who’ve coined a term using the word hate to mean something other than hate.

Hate had a very well established meaning. The new meaning extends to luke-warm offense (in addition to a narrow subset of genuine hatred). The trick is to smuggle the original meaning’s limbic gravity over to this new one. I’m sure you recognize this is a very common rhetorical move.

And then there is another layer of not saying what is meant. Because as long as this term has existed, it has had a working definition that is far more selective than your quote. No?

So your claim is that some hate speech is not hateful? Or at least that some language that is labeled hate speech may not meet, say, the UN definition?

Ok, so the term can be misused. But nevertheless it is a useful term. Not a nonstarter.

I am putting it to you that it is not a useful term. Please afford me grace as I clumsily lay out my case.

I’ll emphasize a subtle point that is important to me. There is a fundamental mismatch. The definition pertains specifically to low resolution preferences - and hate is a specifically high resolution preference with high resolution intensity.

Whatever ought to be done about bigotry of all shades, misnaming the problem is a bad start.
And, here, I will just show my cards - I believe the misnaming was a devious tactic rather than good faith misstep.

I also want to admit to a US-centric position on this. Freedom of speech has always been a core principle. That said, I personally think it’s something the US had right.

I like to think of it as anti-baby speech.

It's when you attack something a person was born as/under/or subject to without any effort or doing of their own. Something they have no control over. It's something weak people do. I.E. a "dick move." I suppose that's not entirely accurate since a person can become handicapped later in life or of course become elderly, and "hate" speech against handicapped people or the elderly (though patently silly) could in theory result in violence or discrimination against them resulting in their revolt and contribution to the start of a war (though, I suppose in those two particular cases the latter is fairly unlikely, but that's not the point).

I like the earlier post of the amygdala "fear response". It makes people feel unsafe knowing there's nothing they can do or change about their behavior or demeanor. Going back to the baby thing, it's like someone was just born "wrong" and should have been killed as a baby. Which is generally not what sane people believe.

Not a fan of the whole grouping of people who choose to become the opposite gender because of non-medical self-diagnosis being on par with say, black people who have been historically persecuted for being born with the color of their skin and for no other reason. Just seems kind of offensive to compare apples and oranges when it comes to human life, dignity, and well-being. But whatever.

I suppose religion is interesting because people can choose to believe or not believe anything they want. Otherwise they're legally and medically retarded or at least not a legal, functioning adult (I.E. is a child). So, in my opinion, it's not the same as persecuting someone who chooses to follow Mayor McCheese as Lord and Savior versus someone born with a different skin color than you through no action, desire, or will of their own. See the difference. One is a choice, one is not. I just can't find the two comparable legally, and yet they are so. Again, it's probably to prevent wars and group or gang violence, I guess. Something like that. The people in charge know what they're doing so just live your life. You don't really have many other options.

In my opinion some of the worst hate speech is used everyday without the average person batting an eye. "Size-ism". Calling somebody "little" (often prefixed with a strong secondary insult) just because they were born smaller than they were. That's discrimination. Miserable cowardly people (who know deep down the world would be a better place without them) cannot refuse an opportunity to attack, belittle, or demean a person smaller than them when it's easy. They cannot cope with modern society where everyone is equal, their size they based their entire identity on that used to mean everything as a child, getting them their every want and desire, now meaning nothing and getting them nothing, without spreading misery wherever they step. Cowardice laws should fix that right up. These arrogant, brainless giants need go the way of dinosaurs and experience the Great Flood in Genesis (but a non-literal legal, social version) if humanity is ever going to live in peace and prosper.

I am putting it to you that it is not a useful term. — Roke

And yet there it is, being used by the United Nations. Likely the UN decided to use the term "hate" precisely because they need to motivate action and resources for what is essentially an educational approach

Perhaps take a look at the UN document, and see if there is something in the actions therein that is problematic.

The document is specific with regard to freedom of expression:

1. The strategy and its implementation to be in line with the right to freedom of
opinion and expression. The UN supports more speech, not less, as the key means
to address hate speech

Perhaps your point is more about the misuse of an expression rather than an argument that it not be used at all.

The problem is that the contradictions about free speech to address hate speech incites cultural wars. Of course, unexpressed hatred exists as an unconscious subtext to life. Suppression of hostility may lead it to fester but there is the question of whether too much freedom is giving more power to hostile emotions as opposed to seeking common grounds beyond differences. It all seems symptomatic of fragmentation of value systems.

Perhaps your point is more about the misuse of an expression rather than an argument that it not be used at all. — Banno

Possibly, but the bigger point being advanced here seems to be that the term "hate speech" is a lab created neologism designed for the purpose of denigrating one's opponent's political positions as being evil or shameful.

That is, under this description, if someone condemns transsexualsim, referring to that as "hate speech" is just a politically expedient way of shutting down the coversation as off limits in civil society.

The argument would therefore be that "hate speech" is not an otherwise useful term being misused, but that it's a term designed for misuse, a special tool to shut down one's opponents, especially as applied to values advanced by liberal progressives but disputed by conservatives.

While the UN might have a definition that limits the term in a way that should reduce its misuse, that doesn't impact how the term is typically used in the vernacular which is, of course, how it is commonly used, which is therefore what it commonly means.

Being told therefore that I might be engaging in hate speech might mean something serious or it might just mean my opinion is being vetoed as non-compliant with certain community standards.

Hate speech is a censorship term of art like blasphemy, heresy, or sedition, and functions much the same. It’s a kind of sacrilege speech a ruling class and orthodoxy does not want people to hear because they fear the deleterious effects to their order.

I am putting it to you that it is not a useful term. Please afford me grace as I clumsily lay out my case.

I’ll emphasize a subtle point that is important to me. There is a fundamental mismatch. The definition pertains specifically to low resolution preferences - and hate is a specifically high resolution preference with high resolution intensity.

Whatever ought to be done about bigotry of all shades, misnaming the problem is a bad start.
And, here, I will just show my cards - I believe the misnaming was a devious tactic rather than good faith misstep.

I also want to admit to a US-centric position on this. Freedom of speech has always been a core principle. That said, I personally think it’s something the US had right. — Roke

So, what do you then think about Osama bin Laden's message? OBL declared that killing even American civilians would be correct and justified for Muslims. This is a quote from the guy from February 1998

We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

And his followers did follow this message quite successfully on 9/11.

So... what other would you call his message above than hate speech? Would you really favor Osama's right to spread this kind of message, because of freedom of speech is a core principle?

I think there is a problem when people start to say words are violence--which I have seen people do.

In general, it is a means to protect people. Any means established to protect people will inevitably be used by bad actors. This is the cost of any freedom.

The same thign can be said of Human Rights. There are no such thing in the natural world, yet it is an idea that seems like a step in the right direction for hte betterment of everyone. Such ideas are always open to abuse because people are very creative when it comes to being bad actors as well as good actors.

Societal norms necessarily have to seesaw. This is better than overreaching for some utopian ideal imo.

Banning "Hate Speech" is just another version of "woke." Banning Hate Speech means the government ought to ban most religious denominations too.

Odd, that without evidence, or even argument, folk accept the theory that "hate speech" was specifically invented as a political weapon to silence conservatives. That seems to be where we are, at least in some countries. The term is recent, however the idea has a long history, back to outlawing libel agains groups, and blasphemy, through reactions to the harm of Nazi propaganda, tot he tension between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights problematically including protection for both freedom of expression and against discrimination. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination requires states to criminalise “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred". Calls for action came after events in Rwanda, after which media executives were convicted of genocide. The concept of hate speech came long before the present US partisan fights.

As Pam Bondi recently discovered, there is indeed a tension between free speech and hate speech.

There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place — especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie — [for that] in our society.... We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech. — Pam Bondi

The United States elevates free speech in a way not seen in other jurisdictions, perhaps to the point of fetishising it. Other countries have found it possible to implement restrictions on acceptable speech. Wikipedia kindly provides a list of examples. As with gun law, the United States is an outlier. The preponderance of US citizens here will render the discussion somewhat parochial.

There are indeed plenty of philosophical issues to discuss here. It's a topic of some interest in that it sits at the intersection of ethics and language. Of particular interest to me is how Austin's distinction of perlocutions from illocutions has been used in solidifying the performative aspect of hate speech, in separating the harm caused in the utterance of some particular speech act from harm caused as a later result of that act.

...some instances of hate speech can be seen to constitute acts of (verbal) discrimination, and should be considered analogous to other acts of discrimination—like posting a ‘Whites Only’ sign up at a hotel—that US law recognizes as illegal... — SEP

There was a time not long ago when such discussions might occur in this forum. The partisan and the parochial have changed that.

There was a time not long ago when such discussions might occur in this forum. The partisan and the parochial have changed that. — Banno

Did they physically raid one another's home and slaughter them Biblically? Have they forced you into cowardice? If none of these things are true, you complain over nothing. Can't you see that?

...much the sort of thing about which I complained...

Oh well.

Indeed. Hectoring rather than conversation.

On one influential argument, unfettered free speech is no more than the privilege of the wealthy to say what they please at the expense of the many; see Murdoch or Musk.

Just so.

...much the sort of thing about which I complained...

Oh well. — Banno

I'm not saying your wrong or that people who have. as you said. seemed to have found the views you find truthful or relevant to have fallen out of favor. I'm saying, that's an organic process. No, and it could be horrible. Absolutely. A harbinger of a great ignorance sweeping over us all like an English fog.

But the idea that people need to be pointed out and shamed by titles, just needed a bit more explanation in my eyes. If that's fair.

My main point was, why don't you start and persist or rather insist in starting and maintaining these arguments? You're clearly able to. Just seemed like a silly quip of juvenile frustration, quite unusual from a mind like yours.

I've given a few extended and considered replies, referencing various external sources and pointing to various arguments.,

See how your reply is about me?