Free Speech and Hate Speech

J. Woodford Howard

Annual Review of Political Science · 2019 · 215 citations · 45 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

The debate centers on whether hate speech falls within the scope of the moral right to freedom of expression. The article argues that the debate over banning hate speech must be broken into discrete analytical stages to avoid participants talking past one another. The authors outline a three‑stage analytical framework: first, determining whether hate speech is protected by the right to expression; second, evaluating speakers’ moral duties to refrain from hate speech; third, assessing whether such duties should be enforced, considering epistemic fallibility, state‑power abuse, and counter‑speech benefits. The study concludes that if hate speech is protected by the right to expression, bans on it would be unjust.

Abstract

Should hate speech be banned? This article contends that the debate on this question must be disaggregated into discrete analytical stages, lest its participants continue to talk past one another. The first concerns the scope of the moral right to freedom of expression, and whether hate speech falls within the right's protective ambit. If it does, hate speech bans are necessarily unjust. If not, we turn to the second stage, which assesses whether speakers have moral duties to refrain from hate speech. The article canvasses several possible duties from which such a duty could be derived, including duties not to threaten, harass, offend, defame, or incite. If there is a duty to refrain from hate speech, it is yet a further question whether the duty should actually be enforced. This third stage depends on pragmatic concerns involving epistemic fallibility, the abuse of state power, and the benefits of counter-speech over coercion.

References

45