14-Nov-2012, 09:55 PM
This New York Times opinion piece dated 13th November 2012,
Going In Circles With Hate Speech
examines two suggested approaches to dealing with hate speech, namely, the zero-tolerance approach and the marketplace-of-ideas approach. The following are quotes from the article weighing both these options.
The case for zero-tolerance of hate-speech:
The case for engaging hate-speech in the marketplace of ideas
Why this is an enduring dilemma
Going In Circles With Hate Speech
examines two suggested approaches to dealing with hate speech, namely, the zero-tolerance approach and the marketplace-of-ideas approach. The following are quotes from the article weighing both these options.
The case for zero-tolerance of hate-speech:
Quote:You can’t cogently debate whether to regulate something unless you have first identified the harms it produces. Bhikhu Parekh, political philosopher and a member of the British House of Lords, is quite confident in his account of those harms. Hate speech, he says, “lowers the tone of public debate, coarsens the community’s moral sensibility, and weakens the culture of mutual respect that lies at the heart of a good society.” In addition, hate speech “violates the dignity of the members of the target group” who lead “ghettoized and isolated lives with a knock-down effect on their children’s education and career choices.”
The case for engaging hate-speech in the marketplace of ideas
Quote:We are not, she (Nadine Strossen, a professor of law and a past president of the A.C.L.U) insists, “automatically diminished just because some bigot says something negative about us.” Indeed, we are better off knowing about the hateful things being said, first because it provides “valuable information,” second because it gives the targeted individuals “an opportunity to respond” and third because it “highlights … issues that can be addressed in other ways, for example through education.”
Why this is an enduring dilemma
Quote:In the end, none of the alternative ways of dealing with hate speech is entirely satisfying. Allowing it all leaves unanswered the question of what to do about the harms it causes. Banning it all reopens the question of just what it is and what it isn’t. Selectively banning this but not that only reanimates the divisiveness that hate speech regulation promises to diminish. We’ll be at this for a long time, going in exactly the same circles.