Hate Speech Laws are a good idea

However, I do feel that he has missed the mark regarding both of our arguments. It seems as though Con agrees that the law must be defined and it must be necessary to protect the people (in this case specifically, from threat or defamation) in order to be justified. When you take away the opinion pieces, we are left with 3 main facets of his argument. Summary of Con’s Case Hate speech is ill defined. There are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that it is disingenuous of Con to present an incomplete definition of hate speech, claim it is not properly defined, and then fault me for correcting him with its full and true definition. I hope that throughout the course of the debate, it has become clear to the reader that hate speech is, in fact, as clearly defined as defamation, which is currently illegal. The second problem with this line of reasoning is that my opponent uses the supposed lack of a definition for hate speech as a point in his favour, when both of us have provided definitions for it. Additionally, he provides numerous examples that are not hate speech. Simply hating something or stating you hate something is not hate speech and nobody is claiming this is so! Just like any other law, the court would obviously decide whether or not the law has been broken. Hate speech is different from defamation. “Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. ” Con has provided no source for his vague and incomplete definition of hate speech (which was originally a definition for “hate speech laws”), while I have. My opponent’s issue with my definition is the latter half that includes inciting violence against those groups. However, even if we remove that from the definition, we still have: “Hate speech […] vilifies a person or a group on the basis of […] race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, or disability. […]” Both defamation and hate speech involve the process of vilification, and both give the victims a negative or inferior image. My opponent has only stated that the two are different, without actually explaining why. Hate speech is different from threats. Con has failed to address any of the studies I’ve posted about group behaviour. He has ignored my point about hate speech breeding an “us vs them” mentality, and how such perceptions, at the very least, increase apathy. Isolating groups through hate speech is, in fact, threatening for those groups. In addition to being a form of defamation, as evidenced by the rise in violence against Hispanics and Muslims I cited in my second round, hate speech does, in fact, lead to violence. My opponent claims that I cannot infer cause with this information. However, I did post a study on Conformity in my previous round that shows cause can be inferred. My opponent has not responded to this point at all. Summary of My Case Hate speech is not protected by “Freedom of Speech” I would like to remind the reader that my opponent has completely dropped my argument about hate speech being defamation. He claims that there is no need for hate speech laws because such offenses would be prosecuted as either “threats” or “defamation”. However, as I stated in my previous round, defamation laws are meant to protect specific individuals, while hate speech laws are intended to protect general groups. Hate speech is intended for a broad, nonspecific target and negatively affects every member of that population. A defamatory statement against a specific person or specific group denigrates those specific individuals, while a defamatory statement against a non-specific group (ie. Hate speech) denigrates anyone who belongs to that group, even if they were not the ones directed addressed. Perception affects action, and there is a link between hate speech and hate crime. Con has dropped these points completely. He has failed to address the study I posted on the effects of in-group vs. out-group perceptions as well as the conformity study. “God hates witches” is a false comparison because currently, gays are being denied rights, and are often treated as second-class citizens, based on bigotry and hatred (ie. The “opinions” of religious groups). While Con and I may not be affected by a statement such as “God hates f@gs”, it does affect those who are already predisposed to similar bigotry. With a large population of the US identifying as religious, and the fact that aside from hate crimes, gays are afforded less rights and freedoms than heterosexuals in the US [1]; in addition to the studies I have posted on the effects of in-group vs. out-group thinking and conformity, it is clear that hate speech poses a real threat to those who identify as gay. Witch burners are not faced with this threat (and murder is illegal). Conclusion I believe it is clear that I have rebutted the crux of Con’s arguments, while he has not really addressed mine. Everyone has the right to live free of threats to their person, whether it is physical or societal. Hate speech laws reduce the incidence of public hate speech, and people will conform to the majority. Reduced hate speech would lead to reduced apathy (eg. toward gays having fewer rights) and reduced hate crime. Vilification and denigration for being an ethnic or religious minority, gay, (etc. ), is unjust and has detrimental consequences, and for this reason, hate speech laws are a good idea. Sources [1] . https://www.facebook.com...