Hate Speech is often given the reputation of being a mechanism for people to spread racism and hatred toward the minority groups of a society, a characteristic in which many of us would agree that this would not help in terms of development. Waldron focuses a lot on this topic, saying that this form of hate speech takes away from the "dignity" of the individuals composing the ostracized minority groups. He defines dignity as the quality everyone has regardless of their physical qualities in which all individuals are treated equally. He believes dignity to be this characteristic in which you think of anyone as 'normal'. Waldron believes this is a quality that every free society should have, and the ability for hate speech to demean this quality puts it as an inherent harm to society.
However, what would be a situation in which hate speech could actually prove itself to be useful? Suppose that there is a protest or speech against a law such as the draft, and the protestors offer a feasible solution to the draft. If this were true, than the government could consider this solution and if it works out, than its population could be more content with it. The point here is that hate speech could be used as a mechanism for improvement and progress if it is used for criticism without demeaning a minority group. When it comes to the government, the officials and politicians have chosen an optional role in gaining power and maintaining the welfare of a country, whereas an individual in a minority group has no option when it comes to their skin color, or the crimes that another individual did. Within the book, Waldron implies that because people in government had the option to participate in politics and the bureaucracy, then it is ok for hate speech to be geared towards the government itself, instead of minority groups.
Anyways, that's all for this week! Tell me what you guys think about Waldron's ideas or if you have any interesting theories yourselves.
Are you equating "hate speech" with mere dissent or protest? I don't think anyone defines it in this way.
ReplyDeleteThe first job of a philosopher is to define his terms. This may be one of the biggest challenges you face as you finish this paper. Make sure you've got a clear understanding of the terms you use, and if you define them in non-standard ways, make sure the reader knows it so that he doesn't get confused.
Best of luck in finishing this project.
Hi Mr. Lambert,
DeleteI agree, I have not directly defined most of the terms I have used in my blog over the weeks, and I will certainly have to do so by the time of the presentation.
So, hate speech is one aspect of false information? What are some of the others? Thank you for the example and explanations of Waldon's view of dignity and hate speech. Are there any other uses of false information besides progression and improvement?
ReplyDeleteHi Ziba! Yes, hate speech is one form of false information. I do not knows all forms, but an obvious example is lying.
DeleteHi Liam. I love you're constant relating to Mills argument. I like your relation of hate speech to dignity as well.
ReplyDeleteHi Cole! Thank you!
DeleteCool! It is interesting how the knowledge of hate speech could be necessary but could you go more in depth in the draft example?
ReplyDeleteHi Aditya! The general theory about the draft example is that through criticism, a better alternative to the draft might be proposed.
DeleteHey Liam. I'm a little confused. How does hate speech relate to what one needs to know? Also, I was a little confused on your definition of dignity. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteHi Akash! Hate Speech, doesn't directly relate to what you need to know, the general idea is that it could help progress the society as a whole.
DeleteHi Liam! I thought Waldron's interpretation of hate speech was really fascinating. I had never really thought of it in that light. However, I didn't quite understand your definition of dignity. What would be an example of someone not having dignity? Best of luck with the rest of your research!
ReplyDeleteHi Nicolas! Someone without "dignity," as Waldron calls it, would be someone who has demeaned or ostracized to the point where they can no longer function within society as everyone else does.
DeleteHey Liam! I disagree to some extent. I think hate speech has changed over time. Rather than how you described it in your post, I think it refers to speech that "hates" for no rhyme or reason. There is no benefit towards either group. It simply exists, benefiting no one. In your example of the government, that is on the level of a complaint, which is different from hate speech. Anyways, that's just my opinion. I find all of this really interesting which is why I decided to argue my point. Good luck with the remaining weeks!
ReplyDeleteHi Adam! Most people do believe that Hate Speech should not be allowed, such as Waldron when it comes to minority groups. However, things such as protests where someone gives a speech that is adamantly opposed to the government can be argued to possibly progress society. For one, its a method to express society's discontents, but also a way to provide possible solutions to governmental regulations. Thank you for arguing your point!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Liam! Your research is very interesting. However, I do think that the example you gave with protesters offering a solution to the draft wouldn't be an example of hate speech working but rather free speech working. I love that you're examining different kinds of speeches though.
ReplyDeleteHi Nichole! That's actually a really interesting idea, thank you!
DeleteHey Liam! What you get to read every week is so interesting! In my opinion, I feel like the term "hate speech" is so broad that sometimes it can be misused in certain situations. For example, your example of the protests leading to something beneficial was confusing to me because I don't see protest as a form of hate speech as usually it is done towards something that they think is more beneficial. Is there anything that you've read in it that you don't agree with? Great post!
ReplyDeleteHi Urmi! I agree, at first I didn't see protest or hate directed towards the government as hate speech, but I do think I agree with it.
DeleteI agree with some of the other comments, where people are saying 'hate speech' is different from what Waldron may have defined it as. It may be that this hate speech has become less and less understandable or meaningful, but some of the hate speech we see today does not seem useful at all.
ReplyDeleteHi Luke! Terms are very subjective, and Waldron's definition of hate speech is a lot more inclusive. That's true, a lot of hate speech is unnecessary, but I don't think all of it.
Delete