In many developed nations, citizens are being prosecuted for the crime of hate speech.
This is prevalent in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, where public figures are being attacked by the law for saying the wrong things, not threatening anyone.
While being good intentioned, certain hate speech laws can hinder the right to free speech. This is because hate speech is a subjective term with plenty of grey area. Obviously, harassment and threats are not acceptable and do fall under hate speech; the problem comes up when people feel harassed by strong or radical opinions.
By Dictonary.com, Hate Speech is defined as “speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
Most people can agree that attacking any individual or protected group is not a noble thing to do. However, if someone refuses to accept a way of thinking, should they receive legal punishment?
Look at Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology from the University of Toronto. He has publicly shared the opinion that anything other than a binary gender system is superficial. Because of this, he received major backlash when he refused to use certain gender-neutral pronouns such as “ze, vis, and hir” when asked to.
He is strongly against the passing of the new Canadian Bill C-16, which adds gender identity and gender expression as a protected group from discrimination and attacks. Because of this law, Peterson could face jail time because of using the pronouns “He” and “She” to the wrong person, not intending to cause offence.
Other than strong viewpoints, should jokes and satire count as hate speech? Some of the most popular jokes and satire revolves around attacking individuals and groups.
With hate speech laws in place, it would be illegal to make jokes, and stereotype any government protected class, such as disabilities or religions. While jokes that attack these groups are made in poor taste, they are some off the most popular topics for comedians.
Take the case of a popular internet comedian, Mark Meechan, who is more known on YouTube under the alias “Count Dankula.” Meechan was fined £800 under the UK Communications Act for making a joke video addressed to his girlfriend.
Meechan taught his girlfriend's dog to raise its paw in response to anti-Semitic statements. He recorded and posted the video to YouTube, where it went viral, getting more than 3 million views.
This is when Meechan was taken to court and fined for being “Grossly Offensive.” Meechan defended himself by saying that the context for the creation of the video was to be a private joke, and there was no actual malice toward victims of the Holocaust.
Meechan did not mean to offend or attack anyone. A joke video he made was taken out of context by the government, and as a result, he had to face the legal system. This is worrying to the population of the UK, as making any offensive joke can land you in legal trouble if heard by the wrong person.
No government should enforce laws that hinder free discussion and thought. Even if the discussion topic is offensive to certain people, the legal system should not step in. While good intentioned, hate speech laws have ambiguity that can impede on a person's right to free speech. While harassment and threats made to groups and individuals are wrong and should be illegal, just being offensive by itself should not.
Sources:
“Bill C-16.” Openparliament.ca, openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/.
Lizzie Dearden Home Affairs Correspondent @lizziedearden. “Man Who Filmed Girlfriend's Dog Giving Nazi Salutes Fined £800.” 2018, www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/count-dankula-nazi-pug-salutes-mark- meechan-fine-sentenced-a8317751.html.
McBride, Jason, and Daniel Ehrenworth. “A Professor's Refusal to Use Gender-Neutral Pronouns, and the Vicious Campus War That Followed.” Toronto Life, 21 Nov. 2017, torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral- pronouns/.
