Does Freedom of Speech Give People Right to use Hate Speech? (Essay Sample)

Student’s name
Instructor
Course
Date
Does freedom of speech give people the right to use hate speech?
Freedom of speech denotes right of an individual to interconnect with other people without restraint or fear of reprisal or unjustified authoritarian censorship or restriction. Any form of restriction on part of government needs specificity with a distinct purpose that goes beyond merely needing to exercise censorship (Dudley, 22). Hate speech, considered to occur outside the confines of law, is that speech with intent to offend, insult or threaten a group on basis of color, race, nationality, religion, disability, sexual orientation or any other trait. On basis of the law, speech with intent to spread hate, in conduct, gesture, display or in writing is not allowed as it has capacity to cause violence and related harmful action (Dudley, 23). In addition, hate speech can disparage as well as intimidate a given group of individuals. Ability to freely express thought is considered to be natural right meaning government does not issue such a right but can strip it away.
As a consequence, protection of freedom of speech is acknowledged within legitimate documents (Dudley, 24). Freedom of speech is captured within universal declaration of human rights. An area of controversy is whether expression of hate speech in the name of exercising free speech ought to be discouraged. Globally, no country allows expression of words capable of invoking a fight. No country or state allows expression of ethnic or racial epithets if such an expression of thought will lead to violence. In other words, freedom of expression is not a guarantee that individuals can exercise hate speech since there are many undesirable effects of such action (Dudley, 27).
Hate speech tends to exhibit views that may be considered to be bigoted hindering social cohesion and well-being. Disciplined communities are those which embrace the concept of free speech while being conscious of the effects of spreading hate speech. Some critics such as Waldron believe the idea of not regulating speech is necessary to allow positive changes in the community, since such communities are focused on self-edification (Dudley, 29). Unfortunately, such an argument favors an ideal community, which in reality does not exist. Social vises such as tribalism will flower in such a circumstance creating division within the society. A case in point would be 2007-2008 post-election clashes in Kenya. Violence resulted leading to death of more than 1000 people and displacement of others from their own homes. In effect, most citizens in Kenya become refugees in own country; a consequence of exercising freedom of speech beyond its limits. Evidently, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to spread hate speech (Dudley, 30).
Allowing freedom of expression of thought, including malicious thought, encourages our society to embrace prejudice of identity. Philosophers such as Waldron argue that social prejudice is not able to develop and take root singly. This argument is premised on the idea that hate speech induces instantaneous response within the community in context of personal luminary status (Dudley, 32). This argument borders on consequentialism and speculation. Allowing the community unchecked freedom of expression meaning members of society are free to voice personal opinion irrespective of its effects on groups targeted will cause our communities to embrace and move towards oppression of identity and related practices with time (Dudley, 32). Hate speech has a very significant role, if allowed to fester, within society’s casual setup. This casual setup consists, in part, of an array of materials, institutions, economic as well as discursive elements from which identity related social hierarchy arises (Dudley, 45). Such a system is only successful when members of community embrace freedom of speech without checking its limits (Greenawalt, 35).
Spreading hate speech under pretext of exercising freedom of expression is one of the causes of social insecurity within the community (Greenawalt, 35). Targets of hate speech tend to feel insecure and become unsure of individual social status thereby becoming non-functional members of society (Greenawalt, 35). This insecurity stems from fact that although a targeted members of community lives with understanding laws accords full rights by virtue of which there is full membership (de jure right), social insecurity associated with knowledge that a section of community despises an individual is sufficient cause for humiliation leading such members of society to take on a life style not pertinent free living (Greenawalt, 36). Freedom of speech should not encompass free expression hate speech. Restriction of hate speech has a positive impact on society’s order over time (Greenawalt, 36).
A number of authors believe hate speech infringes on personal dignity. The concept of dignity forms a pertinent idea creating the need for restriction of freedom of speech to exclude hate speech. The main idea here is that hate speech corrodes individual welfare in general (Greenawalt, 38). Hate speech enhances violation of individual rights, although most pragmatics tend to avoid this argument (Greenawalt, 39). The main reason is that there is insufficient deontological as well as welfarist reasoning to advance this argument. However, basing argument on social well-being, it is obvious that hate speech ought to be limited since dignity as a whole is an element which founded on considerations such rank, hierarchy and status (Greenawalt, 39). Personal dignity is not limited to receiving poor or good treatment (Greenawalt, 40). What matters is individual treatment based on attitudes which prevail within a social setup, which in principle, would include perceived self-worth. Social standing and perceived self-worth are elements capable of being influence through the views of others (Greenawalt, 40). Propagation of hate speech has ability to corrode how individuals perceive themselves when viewing personal social standing through the eyes of hate speech propagators. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of hate speech since it has potential to cause creation of societal hierarchy (Greenawalt, 42).
Hate speech corrupts individual recognition which is underlain by social status. Based on an argument presented by Heyman in his discussion relating to hate speech with respect to social recognition dignity, dignity encompasses receipt of fair treatment and sound recognition which clearly underlies individual status as being rights bearer in general (Greenawalt, 42). Social rights are founded on respect in context of individuality (Greenawalt, 43). In essence an individual will not be able to enjoy individual rights in a community in which personal rights unless recognized the rest of community (Greenawalt, 43). A number of theorist, one being Habermas, believe social recognition is the Conner stone of a diverse and ethical community, one without social vices such as malice spread through hate speech (Greenawalt, 45). This argument presents one approach through which view on detrimental effects of hate speech in the community may be appreciated in totality. A culturally diverse community is one which respects freedom of speech (Greenawalt, 45). However, hate speech creates a situation in which only government respects and recognizes social status as well as identity (Greenawalt, 47).
Allowing freedom of speech to extent that one is able to freely voice malicious thought is a violation of right to recognition (Allport & Jennifer, 67). An example would be a community in which an individual calls for social and economic exclusion of one segment of the society due to belief that such a community is unworthy (Allport & Jennifer, 67). The war in Rwanda was rooted in the idea of malice and hate speech. Two different communities refused to acknowledge each other leading to demeaning of individual as well as communal social standing. Theori...