Ajay Kumar at 05:33, 12 August 2023

2023-08-12T05:33:41Z

New page

{{Short description|Speech that expresses hatred towards individuals or groups}}
{{distinguish|Profanity}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2020}}
{{Discrimination sidebar |Manifestations}}

'''Hate speech''' is defined by the ''[[Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary|Cambridge Dictionary]]'' as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech|title=hate speech|website=dictionary.cambridge.org}}</ref> The ''Encyclopedia of the American Constitution'' states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".<ref>John T. Nockleby, "Hate Speech," in ''Encyclopedia of the American Constitution'', eds. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst, vol. 3 (2nd ed., Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, p. 1277–1279); quoted by {{cite journal |title=Library 2.0 and the Problem of Hate Speech |first1=Margaret |last1=Brown-Sica |first2=Jeffrey |last2=Beall |url=http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n02/brown-sica_m01.html#_edn2 |journal=Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship |volume=9 |issue=2 |date=2008 |access-date=June 22, 2021}}</ref> Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

There has been much debate over [[freedom of speech]], hate speech, and hate speech legislation.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/91098/frontmatter/9780521191098_frontmatter.pdf |title=Herz, Michael and Peter Molnar, eds. 2012. ''The content and context of hate speech''. Cambridge University Press. |access-date=31 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180713011547/http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/91098/frontmatter/9780521191098_frontmatter.pdf |archive-date=13 July 2018 }}</ref> The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite [[violence]] or [[Prejudice|prejudicial]] actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or that disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify protected groups based on certain characteristics.<ref name="legislation.gov.uk">{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/146|title=Criminal Justice Act 2003|website=www.legislation.gov.uk|access-date=2017-01-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report|url=http://www.ypinaction.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Activists_Guide_English_nov_14_2010.pdf|title=An Activist's Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles|date=14 November 2010|page=125|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104093608/http://www.ypinaction.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Activists_Guide_English_nov_14_2010.pdf|archive-date=4 January 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kinney |first=Terry A. |title=Hate Speech and Ethnophaulisms |journal=The International Encyclopedia of Communication |date= June 5, 2008 |doi=10.1002/9781405186407.wbiech004 |isbn=9781405186407}}</ref> In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/|title=CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech|access-date=12 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190724041326/https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/|archive-date=24 July 2019}}</ref> Additionally, in some countries, [[Hate speech in the United States|including the United States]], much of what falls under the category of "hate speech" is constitutionally protected.<ref>Stone, Geoffrey R. (1994). [https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3246&context=journal_articles "Hate Speech and the U.S. Constitution."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180427045441/https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F&httpsredir=1&article=3246&context=journal_articles |date=27 April 2018 }} ''East European Constitutional Review'', vol. 3, pp. 78-82.</ref><ref name="volokh"/> In other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under [[Private law|civil law]], [[criminal law]], or both.

Hate speech is generally accepted to be one of the prerequisites for [[Atrocity crime|mass atrocities]] such as [[genocide]].<ref name="Gordon2017">{{cite book |last1=Gordon |first1=Gregory S. |title=Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition |date=2017 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |ssrn=3230050 |isbn=978-0-19-061270-2 |language=en |access-date=15 January 2022 |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3230050}}</ref> [[Incitement to genocide]] is an extreme form of hate speech, and has been prosecuted in [[international courts]] such as the [[International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda]].

== History ==
Starting in the 1940s and 50s, various American civil rights groups responded to the atrocities of [[World War II]] by advocating for restrictions on hateful speech targeting groups on the basis of race and religion.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Walker|first=Samuel|title=Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy|publisher=University of Nebraska Press|year=1994|location=Lincoln, Nebraska|pages=79}}</ref> These organizations used group libel as a legal framework for describing the violence of hate speech and addressing its harm. In his discussion of the history of criminal libel, scholar [[Jeremy Waldron]] states that these laws helped "vindicate public order, not just by preempting violence, but by upholding against attack a shared sense of the basic elements of each person's status, dignity, and reputation as a citizen or member of society in good standing".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Waldron|first=Jeremy|title=The Harm in Hate Speech|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2012|pages=47}}</ref> A key legal victory for this view came in 1952 when group libel law was affirmed by the supreme court in [[Beauharnais v. Illinois]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Waldron|first=Jeremy|title=The Harm in Hate Speech|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2012|pages=41}}</ref> However, the group libel approach lost ground due to a rise in support for individual rights within civil rights movements during the 60s.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Walker|first=Samuel|title=Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy|publisher=University of Nebraska Press|year=1994|location=Lincoln, Nebraska|pages=78}}</ref> Critiques of group defamation laws are not limited to defenders of individual rights. Some legal theorists, such as [[Critical Race Theory|Critical Race Theorist]] Richard Delgado, support legal limits on hate speech, but claim that defamation is too narrow a category to fully counter hate speech. Ultimately, Delgado advocates a legal strategy that would establish a specific section of [[Tort|tort law]] for responding to racist insults, citing the difficulty of receiving redress under the existing legal system.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Delgado|first=Richard|title=Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment|publisher=Westview Press|editor-last=Matsuda|editor-first=Mari J.|pages=90}}</ref>

==Hate speech laws==
{{Main|Hate speech laws by country}}
After [[WWII]], [[Germany]] criminalized [[Volksverhetzung]] ("incitement of popular hatred") to prevent resurgence of [[Nazism]]. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/130.html|title=§ 130 StGB - Volksverhetzung - dejure.org}}</ref> Most other European and WWII combatant countries have done likewise, except for [[Italy]], though a new law is contemplated.<ref>Alessandro Speciale, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-22/vatican-says-italy-s-hate-speech-law-blunts-freedom-of-speech "Vatican Says Italy’s Hate Speech Law Blunts Freedom of Speech"] ''Bloomberg Equality'', June 22, 2021.</ref>

International human rights laws from the [[United Nations Human Rights Committee]] have been protecting freedom of expression, and one of the most fundamental documents is the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] (UDHR) drafted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|last=Nations|first=United|title=Universal Declaration of Human Rights|url=https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights|access-date=2021-12-08|website=United Nations|language=en}}</ref> Article 19 of the UDHR states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."<ref name=":0" />

Even though there are fundamental laws protecting freedom of expression, there are multiple international laws that expand on the UDHR and pose limitations and restrictions, specifically concerning the safety and protection of individuals.<ref>{{Citation|last=Altman|first=Andrew|title=Freedom of Expression and Human Rights Law: The Case of Holocaust Denial|date=2012-05-31|url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236282.001.0001/acprof-9780199236282-chapter-2|work=Speech and Harm|pages=24–49|editor-last=Maitra|editor-first=Ishani|publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236282.003.0002|isbn=978-0-19-923628-2|access-date=2021-12-08|editor2-last=McGowan|editor2-first=Mary Kate}}</ref>

* The [[Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination]] (CERD) was the first to address hate speech and the need to establish legislation prohibiting inflammatory types of language.<ref>{{Citation|last=Mendel|first=Toby|editor1-first=Michael|editor1-last=Herz|editor2-first=Peter|editor2-last=Molnar|title=Does International Law Provide for Consistent Rules on Hate Speech?|work=The Content and Context of Hate Speech|year=2012|pages=417–429|place=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/cbo9781139042871.029|isbn=9781139042871}}</ref>
** The CERD addresses hate speech through the [[International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination]] (ICERD) and monitors its implementation by State parties.<ref>{{Cite web|title=OHCHR {{!}} Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination|url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cerd/pages/cerdindex.aspx|access-date=2021-12-08|website=www.ohchr.org}}</ref>
* Article 19(3) of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR) permits restrictions on the human right of freedom of expression when a restriction is provided by law, for the protection of legitimate interest, and necessary to protect that interest.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=OHCHR {{!}} International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx|access-date=2021-12-08|website=www.ohchr.org}}</ref>
* Article 20(2) of the ICCPR prohibits national, religious, or racial hatred that incites violence, discrimination, or hostility.<ref name=":1" />

A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Canada,<ref>{{Cite canlaw|short title =Criminal Code|abbr =RSC|year =1985|chapter =C-46|section =319.|link =https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html}}</ref> Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.<ref name="Howard">{{cite journal|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343|doi-access=free|title=Free Speech and Hate Speech|year=2019|last1=Howard|first1=Jeffrey W.|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=22|pages=93–109}}</ref> In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 expands on the UDHR, stating that restrictions on freedom of expression would be permitted when it threatens national security, incites racial or religious hatred, causes individual harm on health or morals, or threatens the rights and reputations of individuals.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Article 10: Freedom of expression {{!}} Equality and Human Rights Commission|url=https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression|access-date=2021-12-08|website=www.equalityhumanrights.com}}</ref> The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to [[freedom of speech]] contained in the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]].<ref name="volokh">{{cite news|last1=Volokh|first1=Eugene|date=5 May 2015|title=No, there's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/|access-date=25 June 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. The laws designed to protect public order require that a higher threshold be violated, so they are not often enforced. For example, a 1992 study found that only one person was prosecuted in Northern Ireland in the preceding 21 years for violating a law against incitement to religious violence. The laws meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bell|first1=Jeannine|title=Restraining the heartless: racist speech and minority rights.|journal=Indiana Law Journal|date=Summer 2009|volume=84|pages=963–79|ssrn=1618848|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1618848|access-date=21 February 2021}}</ref>

== State-sanctioned hate speech ==
{{Expand section|date=November 2021}}
{{main|Hate speech actions by country}}
A few [[State (polity)|state]]s, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Rwanda Hutu factions, actors in the [[Yugoslav Wars]] and Ethiopia have been described as spreading official hate speech or [[incitement to genocide]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cotler |first1=Irwin |editor1-first=Michael |editor1-last=Herz |editor2-first=Peter |editor2-last=Molnar |title=State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide |journal=The Content and Context of Hate Speech |date=2012 |pages=430–455 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781139042871.030|isbn=9781139042871 }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |title=Saudi Arabia Rebuffs Trump Administration's Requests to Stop Teaching Hate Speech in Schools |url=https://time.com/5780130/saudi-arabia-hate-speech-schools/ |magazine=Time |date=10 February 2020 |last1=Dozier |first1=Kimberly}}</ref><ref name="WPF_world_watches_Abiy_loses_it">{{cite web | last1 = de Waal | first1 = Alex | author-link = Alex de Waal | title= The world watches as Abiy loses it — and risks losing Ethiopia, too. | website= [[World Peace Foundation]] |date = 2021-09-17 | url = https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2021/09/17/the-world-watches-as-abiy-loses-it-and-risks-losing-ethiopia-too/ | access-date = 2021-11-17 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210921050423/https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2021/09/17/the-world-watches-as-abiy-loses-it-and-risks-losing-ethiopia-too |archive-date= 2021-09-21 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Internet==
{{Main|Online hate speech}}
[[File:Virgin SIM card in Poland with the slogan of the campaign against hate speech "Words have power, use them wisely".jpg|thumb|Virgin SIM card in Poland with the slogan of the campaign against hate speech "''Words have power, use them wisely''"]]
On 31 May 2016, [[Facebook]], [[Google]], [[Microsoft]], and [[Twitter]], jointly agreed to a [[European Union]] code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their services within 24 hours.<ref name="guardian-euhatespeech">{{Cite news|title=Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft sign EU hate speech code|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=7 June 2016|date=2016-05-31|last1=Hern|first1=Alex}}</ref>

Prior to this in 2013, Facebook, with pressure from over 100 advocacy groups including the [[Everyday Sexism Project]], agreed to change their hate speech policies after data released regarding content that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women led to the withdrawal of advertising by 15 large companies.<ref>{{cite news|title=#FBrape: Will Facebook Heed Open Letter Protesting 'Endorsement of Rape & Domestic Violence'?|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/28/fbrape-will-facebook-heed-open-letter-protesting-endorsement-rape-domestic-violence_n_3346520.html|access-date=29 May 2013|newspaper=The Huffington Post UK|date=28 May 2013|author=Sara C Nelson}}</ref><ref name="Rory Carroll">{{cite news|title=Facebook gives way to campaign against hate speech on its pages|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/29/facebook-campaign-violence-against-women?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2|access-date=29 May 2013|newspaper=The Guardian UK|date=29 May 2013|author=Rory Carroll}}</ref>

Companies that have hate speech policies include Facebook and [[YouTube]]. In 2018 a post containing a section of the [[United States Declaration of Independence]] that labels Native Americans "merciless Indian savages" was labeled hate speech by Facebook and removed from its site.<ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook labels declaration of independence as 'hate speech' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/05/facebook-declaration-of-independence-hate-speech |access-date=March 11, 2021 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref> In 2019, video-sharing platform YouTube demonetized channels, such as U.S. radio host [[Jesse Lee Peterson]], under their hate speech policy.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Re|first=Gregg|date=2019-06-05|title=YouTube ends monetization of conservative commentator Steven Crowder's channel, several others after left-wing outrage|url=https://www.foxnews.com/tech/youtube-steven-crowder-carlos-maza-vox-adpocalypse|access-date=March 11, 2021|website=Fox News|language=en-US}}</ref>

==Commentary==
Several activists and scholars have criticized the practice of limiting hate speech. Civil liberties activist [[Nadine Strossen]] says that, while efforts to censor hate speech have the goal of protecting the most vulnerable, they are ineffective and may have the opposite effect: disadvantaged and ethnic minorities being charged with violating laws against hate speech.<ref>{{Cite web|first=Nadine|last=Strossen|author-link=Nadine Strossen|url=https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/12/14/minorities-suffer-the-most-from-hate-speech-laws/|title=Minorities suffer the most from hate-speech laws|website=[[Spiked (magazine)|Spiked]]|date=14 December 2018|language=en|access-date=5 November 2019}}</ref> [[Kim Holmes]], Vice President of the conservative [[The Heritage Foundation|Heritage Foundation]] and a critic of hate speech theory, has argued that it "assumes [[bad faith]] on the part of people regardless of their stated intentions" and that it "obliterates the ethical responsibility of the individual".<ref>{{cite web|first=Kim|last=Holmes|author-link=Kim Holmes|url=https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/the-origins-hate-speech|title=The Origins of "Hate Speech"|website=heritage.org|publisher=[[The Heritage Foundation]]|date=22 October 2018}}</ref> [[Rebecca Ruth Gould]], a professor of Islamic and Comparative Literature at the [[University of Birmingham]], argues that laws against hate speech constitute [[viewpoint discrimination]] (which is prohibited by the [[First Amendment]] in the United States) as the legal system punishes some viewpoints but not others.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Rebecca Ruth |last=Gould|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3284999|title=Is the 'Hate'in Hate Speech the 'Hate'in Hate Crime? Waldron and Dworkin on Political Legitimacy|journal=Jurisprudence|date=15 November 2018|ssrn=3284999}}</ref> Other scholars, such as Gideon Elford, argue instead that "insofar as hate speech regulation targets the consequences of speech that are contingently connected with the substance of what is expressed then it is viewpoint discriminatory in only an indirect sense."<ref>Elford, Gideon. "Legitimacy, Hate Speech, and Viewpoint Discrimination." Journal of Moral Philosophy 1, no. aop (2020): 1-26.</ref> John Bennett argues that restricting hate speech relies on questionable conceptual and empirical foundations<ref>Bennett, John T. "The Harm in Hate Speech: A Critique of the Empirical and Legal Bases of Hate Speech Regulation." Hastings Const. LQ 43 (2015): 445.</ref> and is reminiscent of efforts by totalitarian regimes to control the thoughts of their citizens.<ref>Bennett, John. "The Totalitarian Ideological Origins of Hate Speech Regulation." Cap. UL Rev. 46 (2018): 23.</ref>

Miisa Kreandner and Eriz Henze argue that hate speech laws are arbitrary, as they only protect some categories of people but not others.<ref>Heinze, Eric. "Cumulative jurisprudence and human rights: The example of sexual minorities and hate speech." The International Journal of Human Rights 13, no. 2-3 (2009): 193-209.</ref><ref>Kreander, Miisa. "The Widening Definition of Hate Speech–How Well Intended Hate Speech Laws Undermine Democracy and the Rule of Law." (2022).</ref> Henze argues the only way to resolve this problem without abolishing hate speech laws would be to extend them to all possible conceivable categories, which Henze argues would amount to totalitarian control over speech.<ref>Heinze, Eric. "Cumulative jurisprudence and human rights: The example of sexual minorities and hate speech." The International Journal of Human Rights 13, no. 2-3 (2009): 193-209.</ref>

Michael Conklin argues that there are benefits to hate speech that are often overlooked. He contends that allowing hate speech provides a more accurate view of the human condition, provides opportunities to change people's minds, and identifies certain people that may need to be avoided in certain circumstances.<ref>{{Cite SSRN |last=Conklin|first=Michael|date=2020|title=The Overlooked Benefits of 'Hate Speech': Not Just the Lesser of Two Evils |language=en |ssrn=3604244}}</ref> According to one psychological research study, a high degree of psychopathy is "a significant predictor" for involvement in online hate activity, while none of the other 7 potential factors examined were found to have a [[statistical significance| statistically significant]] predictive power.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sorokowski|first1=Piotr|last2=Kowal|first2=Marta|last3=Zdybek|first3=Przemysław|last4=Oleszkiewicz|first4=Anna|date=2020-03-27|title=Are Online Haters Psychopaths? Psychological Predictors of Online Hating Behavior|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=11|pages=553|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00553|issn=1664-1078|pmc=7121332|pmid=32292374|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Political philosopher Jeffrey W. Howard considers the popular framing of hate speech as "free speech vs. other political values" as a mischaracterization. He refers to this as the "balancing model", and says it seeks to weigh the benefit of free speech against other values such as dignity and equality for historically marginalized groups. Instead, he believes that the crux of debate should be whether or not freedom of expression is inclusive of hate speech.<ref name="Howard"/> Research indicates that when people support censoring hate speech, they are motivated more by concerns about the effects the speech has on others than they are about its effects on themselves.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Lei|last1=Guo|first2=Brett G.|last2=Johnson|title=Third-Person Effect and Hate Speech Censorship on Facebook|journal=Social Media + Society|date=April 2020|volume=6|issue=2|doi=10.1177/2056305120923003|doi-access=free}}</ref> Women are somewhat more likely than men to support censoring hate speech due to greater perceived harm of hate speech, which some researchers believe may be due to gender differences in empathy towards targets of hate speech.<ref>Downs, Daniel M., and Gloria Cowan. "Predicting the importance of freedom of speech and the perceived harm of hate speech." Journal of applied social psychology 42, no. 6 (2012): 1353-1375.</ref>

== See also ==
{{Div col|colwidth=35em}}
* [[Allport's Scale]]
* [[Anti-LGBT rhetoric]]
* [[Blasphemy laws]]
* [[Christophobia]]
* [[Clear and present danger]]
* [[Criminal speech]]
* [[Culture of fear]]
* [[Divide and rule]]
* [[Ethnic joke]]
* [[Ethnic slur]]
* [[Gay bashing]]
* [[Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese]]
* [[Haridwar hate speeches]]
* [[Hate crime]]
* [[Hate mail]]
* [[Holocaust denial]]
** [[Laws against Holocaust denial]]
* [[Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred]]
* [[Insulting Turkishness]]
* [[List of symbols designated by the Anti-Defamation League as hate symbols]]
* [[Overton window]]
* [[Prejudice]]
* [[Paradox of tolerance]]
* [[Smear campaign]]
* [[Social undermining]]
* [[Stochastic terrorism]]
* [[ten stages of genocide|Stanton's 10 Stages of Genocide]]
* [[Xenophobia]]

{{div col end}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20190331052010/http://tandis.odihr.pl/?p=home TANDIS (Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Information System), developed by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20171104023326/https://www.ericdigests.org/1993/drug.htm Reconciling Rights and Responsibilities of Colleges and Students: Offensive Speech, Assembly, Drug Testing and Safety]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20171022101020/https://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/conduct.htm From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in Higher Education]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20190402113421/https://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/sexual.htm Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191129032249/https://www.thefire.org/ The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]
* [https://www.academia.edu/33555930/Activities_to_tackle_Hate_speech_SecEd_Magazine Activities to tackle Hate speech]
* [http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip//sbh.html Survivor bashing - bias motivated hate crimes]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192804/http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/hate-speech-reflections.pdf "Striking the right balance"] by [[Agnès Callamard]], for [[Article 19]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191018004033/https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf Hate speech], a factsheet by the [[European Court of Human Rights]], 2015
* [http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/doc/cm/rec(1997)020&expmem_EN.asp Recommendation No. R (97) 20] [[Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe]] 1997

{{Censorship}}
{{Racism topics}}
{{Internet censorship}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Hate speech| ]]
[[Category:Bullying]]
[[Category:Censorship]]
[[Category:Freedom of speech]]
[[Category:Harassment]]
[[Category:Harassment law]]
[[Category:Hate crime]]
[[Category:Ethically disputed political practices]]
[[Category:Homophobia]]
[[Category:LGBT and society]]
[[Category:Linguistic controversies]]
[[Category:Political terminology]]
[[Category:Racism]]
[[Category:Sexism]]
[[Category:Transphobia]]

Hate speech - Revision history

Ajay Kumar at 05:33, 12 August 2023