Friday, February 21, 2020
A Right to Hate?
A white supremacist wants to advocate his political views on a billboard in a majority African-American neighborhood. A neo-Nazi group wants to march in a city with a large number of Holocaust survivors. A conservative Christian passes out literature denouncing the legitimacy of gay marriage outside of a wedding chapel. Are these actions examples of hate speech? If so, should they be legally permitted according to Mill? Is he correct? What should the state do about speech that discriminates or preaches intolerance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mill would argue that unless these people violate his "Harm Principle," we should allow whatever speech an individual wants. He would argue that fact always triumphs over fallacy, and that the truth can only claim this victory by coming into contact with false beliefs. He would also state that one's assessment of the harm of an opinion is itself an opinion, and thus is subject to human error. While I agree with the conclusion Mill draws, I want to take a different angle in this conversation. When one considers handing over power to another individual or collective, it must always be considered what would happen if this power fell into the hands of your worst enemy. While it is the power of freedom of speech and thought that gives white supremacists the right to advocate their bigoted and twisted views, that very same power allowed the voices of the history's most oppressed groups to shine. Freedom of speech and thought gave Susan B. Anthony the right to speak out during the Women's Suffrage Movement, Martin Luther King Jr. the right to speak out during the Civil Rights Movement, and Fredrick Douglass the right to speak out during the Abolitionist Movement. Now it is widely accepted and recognized that these were heroes, people in favor of more tolerance and against hate, but some do not see it that way. If we move the line of freedom of speech even a little, we are showing the despicable people who actively seek to cause injustice that given the right situation they can silence their opposition. Imagine a state where those who seek to help the oppressed are the ones actively silenced. The image isn't hard to conjure, as many of these states have existed before, and the first step in the formation of such a state is always to take away the speech of the people it seeks to oppress. It might not seem like it, but when we take away freedom of speech to one group, no matter how bigoted or hateful they are, we are opening the possibility for the same to be done to the just.
ReplyDeleteMost people would categorize "hate speech" as any form of argument or speech that incites violence against another group of people. Even though Mill doesn't specifically address what he believes qualifies as hate speech, he does claim that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised...is to prevent harm to others." Because of this, Mill would most likely protest against someone actually doing harm to another person, however it's hard to decipher if he would believe hate speech is within that category. In the examples of the white supremacist billboard and a neo-Nazi protest it's easy to categorize as hate speech because both come from groups defined by their hatred for others expressing their views, which it is reasonably assumed are hateful and at least in some sense incite violence. However, a Christian passing out pamphlets is harder to decipher as hate speech as Christians are not typically a group defined by their hatred for others so it is not necessarily a reasonable assumption that the literature they would be passing out would be hateful. Defined as hate speech or not, because none of the speech causes actual direct harm to the people affected, Mill would most likely say it should not be punished. Mill concedes that "No person is an entirely isolated being," (74) and would therefore most likely recognize that hate speech does have a harmful affect to others, however he also states that "Whoever fails in the consideration generally due to the interests and feelings of others, not being compelled by some more imperative duty, or justified by allowable self-preference, is a subject of moral disapprobation for that failure, but not for the cause of it, nor for the errors, merely personal to himself, which may have remotely led to it," (75), essentially claiming that people should be punished for their actions, but not the vices that led up to those actions. Although Mill is most closely talking about vices in the literal sense this can also be applied to the concept of hate speech. Those who say hate speech can be held accountable for their actions, but not the "vice" of bigotry that led up to those actions. I partially agree with Mill on this point, but not wholeheartedly. I agree with him on the point that in most circumstances the government should try not to interfere in citizens lives, and I also agree that people should be held accountable for their actions, and not the "vices" that led up to those actions. However, where I think Mill would have a more lenient interpretation to harm than I would. Since he argues for truth-testing of arguments, even if they are false, I assume he would also believe that false arguments don't do legitimate harm or if they do not enough to silence them. On this account I disagree in the context of hate speech, since I think it alone can do serious harm. Mill wrote On Liberty at a time before mental health and PTSD were widely publicized but in our current times mental health could diffidently be seen as being compromised because of hate speech, therefore causing direct harm to those affected even if the preachers didn't actually lay a finger on them. Because of this I think the best option of the state is to limit speech that could breed intolerance when it is being applied in areas that could seriously impact people's mental health. For example, in a recent(-ish) court case a woman was found guilty of manslaughter for convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide. Even though her words did not directly cause him to do harm, they did incite harm and deteriorate his mental health. I think in the same manner as that putting up a white supremacist sign in an African-american neighborhood can both make the people the sign targets mental health deteriorate and cause other white supremacists to go towards violence, and therefore the government should hold the producers of the sign in some part responsible for any violence or harm it causes.
ReplyDeleteMerriam Webster defines hate speech as "speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people." Even though this definition exists, it exists alongside thousands of other definitions and because the definition is so subjective, it’s incredibly hard to create rules or laws about it. But, assuming the MW definition is correct, all of the aforementioned examples, would be considered hate speech. Despite this fact, Mill would argue that all but one should be legal. Mill would argue that as long as what a person says and does is not physically harming another person, they should be allowed to do it. Though all of these examples would create emotional harm, only one of them could cause physical harm, and that is the Neo-Nazi group example. If a Neo-Nazi group marches through a community filled with Holocaust survivors and any of those survivors have developed PTSD due to what they experienced, seeing Neo-Nazis march through their town could cause intense physical reaction due to the PTSD. That is why, that is the only example that Mill would have a problem with. And as harsh as that opinion seems, I actually agree with it. Yes hate speech is a terrible thing that no one should do or have to experience but I don’t think it’s right to completely ban it if it isn’t causing physical harm. Emotional harm is painful and should be taken seriously but if we as a society operate on the basis of eliminating anything that causes emotional harm, nothing would ever exist. All that being said, I believe there are probably some exceptions to this if the act of hate is so extreme that it does a very severe emotional reaction, then maybe those specific cases should be handled differently. But, on a general note, I agree with Mill that as long as no one else is being physically hurt, people should be able to say what they want.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Mill generally argues that freedom of speech cannot be restricted in any case except of harm, he also makes an interesting statement in terms of the restriction of freedom for people who cannot be reasoned with. This colonialist and paternalist view would likely not be applied by Mill himself to white supremacists or Neo-Nazis, but may legitimize to some extent the exercise of governmental force in reducing the freedom of expressing certain problematic opinions. Mill believes that, “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion” (Chapter 1). One can argue that liberty does not apply in the case of Nazism and white supremacy because racists are not “capable of being improved by free and equal discussion” due to them not being willing to have an equal discussion with people of color. Conversely, Mill also argues that “There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.” (Chapter 1). Despotism has utility “provided the end be their improvement”, yet at the same time “protection against political despotism” that arbitrarily or prejudicially restrict alternative opinions. Under my own moral and logical judgement of governmental rights, there should be a case-by-case analysis of the behavior of each form of speech, weighing how the speech and behavior inflicts or incites harm against a group of people. For example, I believe someone cannot be legally punished for saying, ‘gay marriage should be illegal and it’s a sin’ but can be punished for saying that LGBTQ+ people deserve to be harmed in some way or harassing people outside of that chapel. Because they are advocating for a decrease in the rights of others, there is a very fine line between expressing speech and oppressing others. Hate speech is one that attempts to use opinions to enact social power and other forms of harm upon a group to maintain or increase structural violence. At the same time as we want to advocate against hate speech, I find it important to remember what the conversely more far left version of protest would be, and questioning if I would justify it. Abortion would be considered by conservative Christians to be murder, but political activism for abortion rights is something I support. This important check gives some legitimacy to Mill’s argument against restricting speech, because our ideas for what speech is okay or not can have personal biases that we need to check, and the harm principle may be the easiest way to question whether restriction of speech is okay. Even then, humans and governmental systems certainly are not perfect.
ReplyDeleteIn Mill's opinion, because these actions do not directly hurt someone, they should not be limited by the government. Mill's "Harm Principle" allows for societal freedom, except for when an individual directly causes harm to another. To Mill, we cannot limit these ideas, as we are infallible, and we cannot distinguish right from wrong. Though the majority of a society may share one belief, Mill does not believe that this indicates that the opinion is true. Thus, although we may classify these actions as hate speech, Mill would argue that we can't determine the "correct" opinion. I believe that these opinions should be prohibited, as they could cause mental and emotional harm to a group of people. However, it is difficult to determine the line for government intervention, as we do technically have Freedom of Speech. To Mill, this safeguards any opinion that an individual wishes to express, and according to him, they should not have to worry about their opinion being censored by the government. However, I disagree with this idea, as it allows an individual to publicly shame/discriminate against a person/group of people. Thus, though we may have Freedom of Speech, I believe that hate speech is something that should not be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteClearly, these are all examples of hate speech, because they are speech acts that profess hate against a particular minority group. The question of whether the government should prohibit hate speech is more complex.
ReplyDeleteMill would probably argue against such a prohibition in accordance with chapter two of his treatise On Liberty. For one, Mill may say that not even an overwhelming majority could determine that hate speech is absolutely wrong or right. Furthermore, assuming that hate speech were determined to be wrong, society could still extract some benefit from such acts. One counterproposal Mill refutes is limiting expression based on the social utility of the opinion rather than truth value. It would certainly be a tough sell, but given his writings, Mill would probably agree that determining the effects of hate speech is itself an unanswerable question of right versus wrong.
Mill's arguments would appear problematic to proponents of social justice, but fortunately, there is another way to achieve the same ends that permits a more nuanced view. I propose a new theory: utilitarianism of expression. Normally, the term utilitarianism refers to a theory of normative ethics that seeks to maximize happiness, wellbeing, or some other fundamentally beneficial value aggregated over all people. At its core, though utilitarianism is simply any system that performs a cost-benefit analysis on a set of consequences to maximize some utility seen as good. Utilitarianism of expression is a logical consequence of Mill's philosophy; as it implies that expression is good and more expression is more good, the most good is achieved by allowing the most expression.
However, maximizing expression presents one key difference from Mill's proposal: it takes into account the effect of one opinion on others. All of Mill's arguments support a diversity of opinion, but restricting opinion is more nuanced. Mill believes that restricting any opinion leads to a net reduction in opinions expressed, but that is overly simplistic. Hate speech, in particular, induces minority groups to hide their true beliefs in an attempt to conform to the hate group's vision. For example, an African American who speaks out against a Ku Klux Klan member will face violence, and the African American community would be discouraged from sharing their views publicly, even if they make up a majority of the population in a given area. Allowing the KKK to express their views freely comes at the cost of silencing a much larger body of opinions. That certainly would not lead to benefits of free expression that Mill espouses and would be unacceptable for those same reasons.
Utilitarianism of expression would instead try to determine the net effect that certain opinions or forms of expression would have on overall free speech and act upon that prediction. As with classic utilitarianism, a distinction can be made between rule and act utilitarianism, where authority may choose to censor the dissemination of opinions with certain characteristics (e.g. messages that encourage violence against the LGBTQ community) instead of evaluating every single case on an individual basis.
Ultimately, I believe policies that maximize the amount of opinions contributed to society better accomplish Mill's true intentions than outright prohibiting government intervention in matters of expression.