Hate Speech Laws are a good idea

My opponent’s quote from Voltaire is irrelevant to either side of the debate. I only addressed it because it was posted as an appeal to authority. My point was that people who are not victims of hate crime obviously have less incentive to be against it. Hate speech was not, in fact, defined in the beginning of the debate. Hate speech laws were defined. The fact that my opponent presented, in his round 2, examples that would not qualify as hate speech is indicative of his lack of a proper definition for it. My Case Hate speech is not protected by “freedom of speech” Hate speech laws are intended to protected groups, while laws against threats and defamation are intended to protect individuals. My opponent has failed to explain why there should be laws to protect individuals but not groups. “God hates f@gs” is an instance of defamation because it appeals to the utmost authority that a significant portion of the population believes in. It is not stated as an opinion, but it is stated as fact and can be demonstrably false. It appeals to the emotions of a significant number of people and is meant to vilify an entire group. Perception affects action, and there is a link between hate speech and hate crime. My opponent claims that I have confused result and cause. However, as I pointed out in my last round, an increase in crime against Muslims has been tied to an increase in hate speech [1]. Thought precipitates action, and not the other way around. It is true that someone who is not homophobic or racist will likely be less affected by hate speech against certain groups. However, as Solomon Asch showed in his world-famous studies, all it takes is one person to cause someone to go against the majority. [2] In these studies, people conformed to the majority even when they didn’t agree with the majority. But when just one person agreed with them, they were more likely to speak out and act on what they believed. Our society is against various forms of discrimination and derogatory beliefs. If someone is quietly racist, they are less likely to act on it publicly because of the threat of public shaming. However, if just one person speaks out, it gives power to those who otherwise would do nothing, to do something. For this reason, hate speech would lead to an increase in hate crime. Con’s Case 1 and 2. My opponent provides no reason to assume hate speech differs from defamation in any way. One could simply claim that defamatory statements are a matter of opinion. As with defamation, it would be up to the courts to decide. He says he doesn’t want the courts to decide what is “hate” and what is “opinion”, and yet he is okay with anti-defamation laws. I again urge the reader to consider: what is the difference between defamation against an individual and defamation against a group? 3. People building a community around something being illegal is not a reason to make that thing legal. Abolishing slavery likely brought slave-owners together and increased their sense of “heroism” and feelings of persecution. That is not a reason to legalize something. 4. Hate speech is as well defined as 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.” [3] A statement such as “God hates f@gs” fits under this definition and would also be classified as hate speech. 5. As stated previously, “God hates f@gs” is in fact defamation and I would challenge my opponent to look at the definition of defamation and explain how it could not be. “God hates f@gs” is clearly not intended to be an opinion, nor would Westboro Baptist Church claim it is their opinion. They claim it is fact because God is the absolute moral truth. My opponent states that defamation against a group is very different from defamation against an individual, without actually explaining why this is so. Again, he provides strawmen as his examples are not actually examples of defamation or hate speech. Conclusion It is clear by my opponent’s examples that he doesn’t seem to actually know what hate speech is. Hate speech involves vilifying an entire group, not simply by stating you “hate” them. I think it is clear that I have shown so far that there is no difference between hate speech and defamation, except that one is against groups and one is against individuals. Thoughts precipitate actions, and group behaviour studies have shown that all it takes is one vocal person speaking out to make you more likely to act on what you already believe. For this reason, hate speech laws are a good idea. Sources [1] http://www.islamicity.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...