Hate Speech Laws are a good idea

My opponent claims that my comment about Voltaire is discrimination. However, Voltaire was accused of hate speech, and not actually a victim of it. I would like to point out that my opponent not only claims that hate speech cannot be properly defined, but he also uses examples that do not match the widely accepted definition of hate speech.[1] In this vain, he both contradicts himself and presents various strawmen. “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. […] is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.” [1] Using this definition, here is a real example of hate speech: Westboro Baptist Church pickets funerals, releases public statements, and makes many TV appearances to say things like “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates f@gs.” [2] Following the deadly Sichuan earthquake in 2008, they issued a press release thanking God and praying “for many more earthquakes to kill many more thousands of impudent and ungrateful Chinese.” [3] Now that “hate speech” has been defined, I will move on to my arguments. My Case 1. Hate speech is not protected by “freedom of speech”. Hate speech is prohibited in Canada because it goes against the Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [4]. Freedom of speech is protected, but it is not absolute: for this reason, you are not free to make threats or defamatory statements against another person in both the US and Canada [5][6]. My opponent concedes this point by agreeing threats and defamation are not included in freedom of speech. I would like to ask: why should we prohibit defamatory statements and threats against individuals but not against groups? Would my opponent claim that “God hates f@gs” is not a defamatory statement? Unless my opponent is claiming that none of the examples I posted above are defamatory, then he concedes that there are instances of hate speech not protected under “freedom of speech”. 2. Perceptions affect action. Hate speech breeds an “us vs. them” mentality, which social psychologists have shown to have negative effects when it comes to attribution errors and other cognitive biases. The bystander effect has been well-documented, and is said to be more likely when the victim is perceived as being part of an “out-group”. “In-group” perceptions can be something as trivial as being a football fan: “In a 2005 experiment, […] passers-by were more likely to help an apparently injured person if that person was wearing a football jersey which supported the same team as them than an opposing team. However, when their shared identity as football fans was made salient instead, supporters of both teams were likely to be helped, significantly more so than a person wearing a plain shirt." [7] Words designed to incite hatred toward specific groups fosters negative perceptions about those groups. The more salient negative perceptions become, the greater the negative effect on those who are victim to it because people are less likely to intervene when certain groups are targeted for crime or hate. [8, 9] 3. There is a link between hate speech and hate crime. [10, 11] Increase in hate crime against Hispanics in the US is strongly correlated with the rise in the immigration policy debate, [12] and anti-Muslim sentiments may be contributing to the increase in hate crimes against Muslims. [13] Rebuttals of Con’s Case I will highlight my opponent’s main points to make it easier for me to respond to them, as well as to make it easier for the reader to follow. 1. “Hate speech laws not only violate the fundamental freedom of speech which democracy is founded upon, they also create societies ignorant about other opinions, no matter how controversial they may be.” This been refuted by my first point. 2. “Hate is very interpretive, and almost impossible to define.” Hate speech is in fact defined. Additionally, the purpose of the court is to interpret laws. 3. “Persecution against [perpetrators of hate speech] not only gives them legitimacy but also a kind of anti-heroism.” I would invite my opponent to explain why this is a reason hate speech laws are a bad idea. 4. “Hate speech laws can turn against you.” Only when they are not properly defined, which I have shown to not be the case. 5. “Society and governments do not have the right to arrest an individual based on their opinions.” This is a strawman. No one is asking the government to arrest people based on their opinions. Conclusion Hate speech instils fear in those who are victimized by it (so is therefore threatening), and as studies have shown, the outcomes of negative perceptions validate this fear. Defamation of a group is no different than defamation against an individual. For this reason, I affirm the resolution that hate speech laws are a good idea. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.tandfonline.com... [9] http://www.racismreview.com... [10] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [11] http://www.partnersagainsthate.org... [12] http://www.civilrights.org... [13] http://www.islamicity.com...