Hate speech, speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others.
Typical hate speech involves epithets and slurs, statements that promote malicious stereotypes, and speech intended to incite hatred or violence against a group. Hate speech can also include nonverbal depictions and symbols. For example, the Nazi swastika, the Confederate Battle Flag (of the Confederate States of America), and pornography have all been considered hate speech by a variety of people and groups. Critics of hate speech argue not only that it causes psychological harm to its victims, and physical harm when it incites violence, but also that it undermines the social equality of its victims. That is particularly true, they claim, because the social groups that are commonly the targets of hate speech have historically suffered from social marginalization and oppression. Hate speech therefore poses a challenge for modern liberal societies, which are committed to both freedom of expression and social equality. Thus, there is an ongoing debate in those societies over whether and how hate speech should be regulated or censored.
The traditional liberal position regarding hate speech is to permit it under the auspices of freedom of expression. Although those who take that position acknowledge the odious nature of the messages of hate speech, they maintain that state censorship is a cure that causes more harm than the disease of bigoted expression. They fear that a principle of censorship will lead to the suppression of other unpopular but nevertheless legitimate expression, perhaps even of the criticism of government, which is vital to the political health of liberal democracy. They argue that the best way to counter hate speech is to demonstrate its falsity in the open marketplace of ideas.
Proponents of censorship typically argue that the traditional liberal position wrongly assumes the social equality of persons and groups in society and neglects the fact that there are marginalized groups who are especially vulnerable to the evils of hate speech. Hate speech, they argue, is not merely the expression of ideas, but rather it is an effective means of socially subordinating its victims. When aimed at historically oppressed minorities, hate speech is not merely insulting but also perpetuates their oppression by causing the victims, the perpetrators, and society at large to internalize the hateful messages and act accordingly. Victims of hate speech cannot enter the “open marketplace of ideas” as equal participants to defend themselves, because hate speech, in conjunction with a broader system of inequality and unjust discrimination that burdens the victims, effectively silences them.
The court system of the United States has, on the basis of the First Amendment and its principle of freedom of speech, generally ruled against attempts to censor hate speech. Other liberal democracies such as France, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand have laws designed to curtail hate speech. Such laws have proliferated since World War II.