Hate Speech/Free Speech

Responsible public speakers need to understand what constitutes hate speech, so they can avoid it.  In the same way, they need to understand their responsibility in supporting free speech.

Hate Speech

Hate speech of any kind is never acceptable in public communications. Hate speech is defined by the U.N. as “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.” ^[1]

Although we can all imagine examples of what we would consider hate speech, the term is notoriously difficult to define. Nonetheless, such definitions are extremely important—especially in a world where globally public speech is available to anyone with an internet connection. For social media platforms, for instance, the problem of differentiating hate speech from other forms of expression is a constant, high-stakes ethical and political dilemma. After all, these companies have pledged to quickly remove instances of hate speech from their platforms—but what should they remove? Here’s how three major social media companies define hate speech:

• Facebook: “We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.”

• X (Formerly Twitter): “You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.”

• YouTube: “Hate speech is not allowed on YouTube. We remove content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes: Age, Caste, Disability, Ethnicity, Gender Identity and Expression, Nationality, Race, Immigration Status, Religion, Sex/Gender, Sexual Orientation, Victims of a major violent event and their kin, Veteran Status.”

In short, definitions of hate speech vary, but all share a particular focus on attacks against protected characteristics, which is a legal term in U.S. law. Protected characteristics are attributes protected by U.S. Federal Anti-Discrimination Law, including race, religion, national origin, age (40 and over), sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, pregnancy, familial status, disability status, and veteran status.

Unfortunately, it’s all too easy to imagine a list of racial epithets, ethnic slurs, sexist or homophobic language, and denigrating descriptions of people’s bodies and abilities; we don’t need to include a list of hateful terms here.

One important distinction to note is the difference—in definition, at least—between hate speech and expressions of hostility toward groups that are not protected classes by law, such as members of certain professions or affiliation groups. Blanket pejorative statements like “all politicians are liars” or “Democrats/Republicans are fools” are probably unfair and unethical in a public speaking situation, but negativity is not the same as hate speech. The previous example of social media illustrates why this is an important concept: one might see all kinds of vitriolic screeds on social media against protesters or police, conservatives or liberals, meat-eaters or vegans, “anti-vaxxers” or “treehuggers,” or “flat-earthers.” Even if the language is malicious and cruel, it probably does not meet the definition of hate speech, and may be allowed on the platform. Where is the line? It’s a very tough call. In general, blanket statements condemning an entire group of people—even an affiliation by choice, such as “activists,” “gamers,” or “preppers”—should be avoided in public speaking. Hate speech, however, is never acceptable, and can carry severe consequences. Remember, free speech is not speech without consequences.

In the following short video, Adama Dieng, the United Nations special adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, shows the high stakes of hate speech with the stark argument that words can kill.

You can view the transcript for “Stopping Hate Speech” here (opens in new window).

Here is the video with accurate captions: Stopping Hate Speech (opens in new window).

Free Speech

With ALL freedom comes responsibility, and the right to free speech is no exception. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defines free speech this way:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Free speech isn’t limitless. The constitution doesn’t protect speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action,” as per Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).^[2] It is also a felony under Title 18, Section 871 of the United States Legal Code to threaten the U.S. President.^[3]

Our freedom to speak bears with it the responsibility to allow others the same right. It is not absolute in that we can say anything we choose, any time and any place. Our personal morals and the ethical boundaries should help make that clear.

Because free speech offers such broad legal protection, responsible speech is generally an ethical question rather than a legal one. Understanding the appropriate ethical boundaries shows thoughtfulness and intelligence as well as personal integrity. As we have seen, racial slurs, name calling, bashing a person or group, and other degrading language is unethical and often stops all sides from being heard in public discourse. Speech should not be weaponized by using this type of language. The freedom to express your opinion while not limiting or infringing on the rights of another person to express their opinion is an important aspect of public speaking. Meaningful conversations between individuals and civil discourse between nations all stem from the same moral and ethical considerations we have discussed and more detailed considerations we have not mentioned.

In the context of public speaking, we have a responsibility to be clear, honest, consistent, and meaningful as well as ethical in our communication. Not all misuses of free speech are illegal, but the vast majority are unethical. The challenge is to treat ethical considerations the same as breathing: something you do all the time so it becomes second nature.