Some Doubts about Hate Speech

Would hate speech laws reduce discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries to vulnerable groups? Nadine Strossen says they would not in her new book,Hate Speech: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship.She believes we have insufficient evidence to conclude that “hate speech” in general harms others, and even less evidence thatconstitutionally protected“hate speech” does so.  Naturally, proponents of “hate speech” laws blame expression for anti-social attitudes and conduct. Strossen maintains that we should refrain from censorship on the basis of expected effect, “simply because itmighthave bad effects. ”  The perceived harmfulness of any given utterance is context contingent, depending largely on variables like location, tone of voice, relationship between speaker and listener, and personality characteristics.Strossen draws attention toa study conducted by Laura Leets of Stanford University. Leets recruited Jewish and LGBT college students to read several anti-Semitic and homophobic slurs all drawn from real situations. The subjects then answered questions about how they would have responded if they themselves had been the targets of these messages. Interestingly, a common response by the students was that the “hate speech” would have had “no effect” upon them in either the short run or the long run. Many of the participants also expressed the belief that the speaker was motivated by ignorance, “and therefore should be the object...

Source: Cato-at-liberty - June 15, 2018 Category: American Health Authors: John Samples Source Type: blogs