# What exactly is hate speech?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 17, 2003, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191 "2003-01-17T06:45:05Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/1 "2003-01-17T06:45:05Z")
> [@](#):
>
> [sub]“Hate speech” and the SDMB
> Per number 4 of Lynn Bodoni’s sticky in the pit
>
> " Pit rules: - # 4. Absolutely no hate speech."
>
> Other than insults regarding race, nationality or sexual preference what exactly (or generally) is construed to be non-allowable “hate speech” on the SDMB? [/sub]
I posted [the question](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156700) above in the ATMB forum re the SDMB policy on “hate speech” and got not a single reply with over 90+ views at the time I am posting this. I figure either my question was either too mundane to bother with or more of a potentially messy entanglement than anyone in authority wanted to get involved with, and I can understand this to some degree but I am still curious the topic of hate speech.
I changing the context of the question and asking it here because the notion of what constitutes “hate speech” is central to a lot of the debate about the limits of free speech in academia and elsewhere (even message boards I would venture to guess)…
So my question is -
What _is_ “hate speech” precisely? What differentiates “hate speech” from normal free speech, and removes it from the general category of other types of protected speech that might obnoxiously or aggressively attack people, cultures or organizations?
[Edited title at poster’s request. – MEB]
---
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/2 "2003-01-17T06:46:34Z")
Sigh - Would a mod change my title “Waht” to “What” - pretty please.
---
### Author:  [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/3 "2003-01-17T06:59:20Z")
As frightening as it sounds … I’d guess it means whatever a lawyer can persuade a jury it means.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/4 "2003-01-17T07:27:24Z")
Well, FWIW. A number of other people’s definitions.
[http://www.sfsu.edu/~ohr/hateDefin.html](http://www.sfsu.edu/~ohr/hateDefin.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Hate speech is a generic term that has come to embrace the use of speech attacks on race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation while the First Amendment does not permit the government to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.
>
> Speech or actions directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and speech likely to incite or produce such actions will be prohibited. Fighting words, which are likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace, will be prohibited. Communications, which create an imminent danger of uncontrolled violence, are prohibited.
[http://www.errc.org/rr\_nr4\_1999/legalde1.shtml](http://www.errc.org/rr_nr4_1999/legalde1.shtml)
> [@](#):
>
> The classic definition of “hate speech” is expression which incites hatred, particularly racial, national, or religious hatred. It must be recognized that some speech which is undoubtedly offensive, does not constitute hate speech, even though it may contribute to a climate of prejudice and discrimination against minorities.
Which seems kind of circular to me–hate speech is “speech which incites hatred”?
This one sounds good to me.
[http://www.scu.edu/Ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/codes.html](http://www.scu.edu/Ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/codes.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Discriminatory harassment includes conduct (oral, written, graphic or physical) directed against any person or, group of persons because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran’s status and that has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, or hostile environment for that person or group of persons.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/5 "2003-01-17T11:20:55Z")
It’s always been the because-of clause that bothers me.
Veteran’s status? I’ve watched the because-of list grow over time. Sexual orientation, age, disability, and now veteran’s status are relative newcomers. Ethnicity was once often used.
It has the same endemic problem that bothered some among the Founders when they wrote the Constitution — namely, that enumeration might be construed as completeness. There’s nothing in the list about discriminatory harassment against short people, fat people, or people with green eyes and red hair.
In fact, even the SDMB does not use the SCU definition. Religious people are routinely offended and intimidated by the use of their god or gods in curses and expletives. Even the mods themselves do this. So, “religion” is not even on their list.
I agree with Furt’s underlying assertion, that so-called hate speech is highly subjective. And I think that specifying forbidden objects of hatred is a futile exercise. SDMB should just say what it means by hate speech or else ditch the silly rule.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/6 "2003-01-17T14:09:04Z")
Mere “offensiveness” is not what I perceive to be the defining characteristic of what I would call “hate speech” (_eg.“you fucking scumbag”_ ). Nor is merely including some “term of personal circumstance” within an insult (_eg. “you fucking white scumbag”_ ).
I perceive “hate speech” to be of an uglier and more extreme order again, involving an _explicit_ declaration that a person’s circumstances or characteristics make them in some way inferior or sub-human, and/or advocating criminal acts against any and all members of such a group (_eg. “Auschwitz should be reopened for animals like you, whitey”_).
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/7 "2003-01-17T14:36:21Z")
Why should that be a crime? It isn’t even a threat. It’s an opinion.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/8 "2003-01-17T14:57:52Z")
The operation of Auschwitz was a war crime, and so advocating its reopening is advocating a criminal act IMO. I realise it’s an opinion and not a threat.
However, I didn’t say uttering the above _is_ or _should be_ a crime, only that I would personally catergorise it as “hate speech” (even when criminal threats might not be). I, too, am waiting for the mods to show up, although I think they’ll probably just leave it to us while they watch Quadrophenia again.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/9 "2003-01-17T15:12:17Z")
Incidentally, if you’re about to become extremely picky, I’ll further quantify my personal definition by stipulating that the “circumstance or characteristic” substantially not be one of personal choice (bye bye veterans) and the criminal act advocated involve violence or significant emotional distress. So “All beauticians should be sold substandard double glazing” does not qualify, although you appreciate I’m not composing a White Paper for immediate legislation here.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/10 "2003-01-17T15:29:57Z")
I do. But I honestly believe that you are treading stormy water just by trying to catch the greased cat called “hate speech”. Is religion out as well, given for argument’s sake that it is a personal choice? Will there need to be scientific proof that homosexuality is not a choice?
Unless speech is used to force someone against their will or defraud them, it seems to me that it is ethically neutral.
---
### Author:  [@Andy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/11 "2003-01-17T15:35:57Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \*
> Mere “offensiveness” is not what I perceive to be the defining characteristic of what I would call “hate speech” …(snip)
> involving an _explicit_ declaration that a person’s circumstances or **characteristics** make them in some way **inferior** or sub-human
So “get the fuck out of here **shorty** ”…hate speech?
---
### Author:  [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/12 "2003-01-17T15:38:53Z")
The problem is, “hate speech” has become an extremely broad, nebulous term.
For instance, in the aftermath of the bombing of the Federal Building at Oklahoma City, it was common to see Rush Limbaugh being denounced for the kind of “hate speech” that supposedly inspired Timothy McVeigh.
I have no problem condemning people who advocate violence or who spout off obvious racism (yes, of course such people exist). Unfortunately, too often, “hate speech” has become liberal shorthand for “conservative rhetoric I don’t agree with.”
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/13 "2003-01-17T16:01:21Z")
OK, OK, I’ll stop trying to catch the greased cat in the stormy water (nice metaphor mix! You should release it on white label vinyl.)
I guess religion and culture, and therefore other personal choices, must be included (Wait! Veterans! You forgot your hat!). However, I regard your perception of the Auschwitz sentiment as “ethically neutral” as a little unsettling.
And **Andy** , I stated that the inferiority declaration be explicit, but yes I have now realised that any and all are going to have a pop at the target I set up so I might as well take it down again.
_Pretends to cry in order to induce unnecessary guilt assuaged by buying me a beer_
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/14 "2003-01-17T16:05:36Z")
Sentient wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> However, I regard your perception of the Auschwitz sentiment as “ethically neutral” as a little unsettling.
Ethically neutral, yes. But morally reprehensible in my opinion. I view ethics as that which is between a man and his fellow man, but morality as that which is between a man and his God or conscience.
---
### Author:  [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/15 "2003-01-17T16:48:20Z")
I think hate speech is one of those things that is difficult to define, yet you still know it when you see it. (And by “you” I mean rational folks. Obviously, no rational person would condemn someone of spouting “hate speech” because they, say, oppose affirmative action, even though such condemnation happens routinely from certain irrational folks.)
If I say, “Fuck you, darky, someone should hang you from a tree”, it’s pretty obviously hate speech, right?
With regards to the SDMB message boards, the mods don’t really need to have a strong definition, because they reserve the right to kick anybody off for any reason. General rule of thumb: if you think it might be hate speech, it probably is.
Jeff
---
### Author:  [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/16 "2003-01-17T16:50:18Z")
Oops, that should’ve just read “SDMB”, not “SDMB message boards”. My kingdom for a proofreader!
Jeff
---
### Author:  [@Guy\_Montag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guy_Montag)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/17 "2003-01-17T17:30:38Z")
Ok, what about “Fuck you, dude, someone should hang you from a tree”? Hate speech? Or just “someone should hang you from a tree”? Is “someone should hang you” hate speech? What if I invent a new explitive: “hang you.”
very slippery if you ask me…
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/18 "2003-01-17T17:57:37Z")
Like an oily sidewalk.
---
### Author:  [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/19 "2003-01-17T18:16:44Z")
[According to dictionary.com:](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hate%20Speech)
> [@](#):
>
> **hate speech
> n.**
> _Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group._
I don’t know if there is a _precise_ definition of what hate speech is and what it isn’t, because often times it’s in the ears or eyes of the person that hears it or reads it. Clearly racial, ethnic and homophobic slurs qualify when directed at members of those groups.
You would probably be warned or banned on the SDMB, if you called someone a racial, ethinic or homophobic slur even in the PIT. I participated in a thread where a woman argued that the word _cunt_ was as offensive as the “n” word. This same woman called another woman a _cunt_ in 72pt type. If this woman had did that with a racial, homophobic or ethnic slur, she would at the very least been warned, but more than likely banned, labled a bigot and so on.
---
### Author:  [@Virgowitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Virgowitch)
#### Post date: [January 17, 2003, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191/20 "2003-01-17T18:25:42Z")
A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, filthy, lily-liver?d, whoreson, glass-gazing, finical, rogue; nothing but the composition of a beggar, pandar, and the son of a mongrel bitch, a brazen fac?d varlet. I?ll make a sop of the moonshine of you, you whoreson cullionly, barber-monger! I will tread this unbolted villain into mortar, and daub the wall of a jakes with him.
Kent, KING LEAR, II, ii
Censorship is the worst hate speech.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-is-hate-speech/149191.md?page=2)