How Harmful Is Hate Speech As A Solution?
The line between harm and offence is often indistinct, yet the two are separate. People who are harmed have a limited choice in reaction, while people who are offended can choose to respond in different manners. For instance, a person is crossing the road when a car appears. The driver is drunk and unable to notice the pedestrian. Since the driver is unable to come to a halt, he collides into the pedestrian. The pedestrian suffers from emotional trauma as well as physical injuries, he is harmed. In another situation, the driver manages to stop in time. The pedestrian is unharmed, but he may take offence at the driver. In this essay, hate speech is viewed as the main means of creating offence, and censorship as a solution to hate speech is discussed.
…show more content…
What is hate speech? Hate speech is language spoken with the purpose of inciting violence, intimidation, degradation, prejudicial action against a person because of differences in skin color, race, religion, nationality, sexual preferences etc. Good speech is language that avoids causing offence or harm. Censorship is the avoidance of issues with the potential to offend or harm others. Although censorship and good speech are slightly different, they are used interchangeably in this essay. Is censorship the answer to hate speech? In the following example, although censorship was in place so no students would be insulted by the text, it was still unable to prevent offence being taken.
Mrs. Heifetz coincidentally found an altered excerpt in her child’s exam paper. The comprehension passage had missing words from a book excerpt which she was very familiar with. Initially she thought it was just one of the occasional quirks used by teachers to avoid misinterpretation of the text. Driven by curiosity, she then checked several other Regents English exam papers for the past three years. She discovered that a vast range of the text had been sanitized to avoid sensitive topics such as race, religion, ethnicity, sex, nudity, alcohol, narcotics or even the mildest profanities. These “clean” texts served as basis for essay writing and comprehension questions.
Mrs. Heifetz was astonished by this fact. The state education department acknowledged the action of modifying excerpts to prevent offending any student sitting for the paper. She proceeded to contact some of the authors of the excerpts. All of them were furious with the state education department for tampering with their work without their consent. Protest letters was then circulated among various organizations whom were concerned with censorship and literary affairs, such as National Coalition against Censorship, the Association of American Publishers, and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
America is a country famous for its freedom of speech, yet the state education department chose to censor the exam comprehension texts in the past 10 years. The state education commissioner Richard P. Mill said that it was believed that such practice would prevent students from feeling discomfort to the topic while taking the exams. However, in an attempt to avoid offending the students, the authors of the excerpts were offended. The authors made a protest saying that this practice of editing passages is intellectually dishonest. It is a form of censorship that distorts the content and meaning of the works.
The above case study suggests the fact that it is hard to avoid offence or harm to everyone. The main objective for censorship is to ensure that people do not get offended. On the other hand, people may be offended when their rights are restricted and their copyrights are harmed. Good speech in this sense is hence, not a good solution to offence.
What if censorship was a solution?
Censorship is no easy feat. Some factors we have to consider before deciding if a statement is bad or good speech are the intentions of the speaker, the context in which it is spoken and the identities of the speaker and audience. The speaker could be a friend making a joke or a terrorist meaning to cause harm. Hate speech may be harmless if spoken at home but harmful if said at a speech. A statement of hate speech is more likely to be taken as offence if uttered by a politician than by a child. Also, a racist comment may anger an interracial crowd but not one with people of the same race. It is challenging to decide what should be censored and what should not. No one can be a fair judge to draw the boundaries; there is bound to be offence taken. For example, can we call a documentary of African tribes with naked women pornography? Also, even after deciding what to censor, not everything can be censored. For instance, people can still proceed with hate speech privately. Plus, who should be the one to decide what to censor? Should it be done by the general public in polls or by the lawmakers of the country? Without deciding where the exact boundaries lie, we cannot censor information
appropriately.
Another hindrance to censorship is the advent of the internet. The web has become a powerful tool for the distribution of information, one that has become nigh impossible to stop, evident through the widespread proliferation of illegal downloads and pornographic material. Content containing hate speech is posted online all the time in blogs and webpages, as well as popular websites such as Youtube, Veoh and Tudou. This content is so easily accessible and updated so often that anyone and everyone can view it. Even government attempts to censor websites they deem offensive are met with limited success as there are ways to bypass censors as well as alternative websites that people can view which pop up every day. Although, traditional media such as newspapers and television programs that are done by companies can still be easily censored of hate speech, e.g. the suspension of Mr Brown’s column in the Today newspaper. But in light of technological advancements, such censorship will become irrelevant in the future.
As such, in Singapore, the government has had to adapt and update its policies regarding censorship to keep up with the times. Measures it has taken to allow people more freedom of expression include the limited legalization of outdoor demonstrations as well as the relaxing of regulations governing the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park in Singapore, both of which were discussed in the recent Prime Minister’s Rally. The above changes are signs that the government is willing to take progressive steps for Singapore to become a more liberal society as the nation slowly matures. Still, the location for the Speakers Corner is a place that not many people will go to and it is very close to Chinatown. Thus, very few people in Singapore will get to hear what is said and the audience may be biased.
Many people have criticized the Singapore government on their strict policies and censorship of racial, religious and political issues. America is often used as a benchmark for human rights and freedom of expression. Critics of Singapore’s government and policies directly compare the policies of Singapore and America. However, we need to carefully examine the underlying reasons the government has for enforcing such restrictions as well as take note of the differences between the political and social scene of the two countries. Firstly, the in the span of Singapore’s relatively short history, it has experienced, most significantly, colonization by the British, occupation by the Japanese, merger with Malaysia and finally its own independence.
In Singapore’s early history, it has experienced several violent riots stemming from racial differences, an issue the British colonialists never thought to address. As such, in early Singapore, the four main ethnic groups hardly interacted and fostered strong bonds of tolerance and understanding with each other. This problem would eventually manifest itself through firstly the Maria Hertogh riots and later on, the racial riots in 1964 and 1969.
These riots have led to a fear that mentioning racial or religious issues will spark another riot, which will harm many lives and affect the economy. The government has built on this fear for many years by censoring such speech and continuously making comments on avoiding such hate speech. This had led to Singaporeans becoming paranoid about such issues and are reluctant to let go and speak their minds. How can we have a liberal society if the citizens fear speaking of such issues even though what they think may be relevant or important? A problem cannot be solved unless it is brought to light. Besides the relaxing of laws, we have to allow time for people to adapt and lose the fear of being punished. Therefore, the solution to bad speech is not good speech or censorship, as this will build on the fear that has been there for so long, but a slow acceptance of the presence of bad speech and the allowing of people to decide what is offensive or not on their own. A safe channel for free expression of such thoughts is hence required in order not to cause riot.
What is hate speech? Hate speech is language spoken with the purpose of inciting violence, intimidation, degradation, prejudicial action against a person because of differences in skin color, race, religion, nationality, sexual preferences etc. Good speech is language that avoids causing offence or harm. Censorship is the avoidance of issues with the potential to offend or harm others. Although censorship and good speech are slightly different, they are used interchangeably in this essay. Is censorship the answer to hate speech? In the following example, although censorship was in place so no students would be insulted by the text, it was still unable to prevent offence being taken.
Mrs. Heifetz coincidentally found an altered excerpt in her child’s exam paper. The comprehension passage had missing words from a book excerpt which she was very familiar with. Initially she thought it was just one of the occasional quirks used by teachers to avoid misinterpretation of the text. Driven by curiosity, she then checked several other Regents English exam papers for the past three years. She discovered that a vast range of the text had been sanitized to avoid sensitive topics such as race, religion, ethnicity, sex, nudity, alcohol, narcotics or even the mildest profanities. These “clean” texts served as basis for essay writing and comprehension questions.
Mrs. Heifetz was astonished by this fact. The state education department acknowledged the action of modifying excerpts to prevent offending any student sitting for the paper. She proceeded to contact some of the authors of the excerpts. All of them were furious with the state education department for tampering with their work without their consent. Protest letters was then circulated among various organizations whom were concerned with censorship and literary affairs, such as National Coalition against Censorship, the Association of American Publishers, and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
America is a country famous for its freedom of speech, yet the state education department chose to censor the exam comprehension texts in the past 10 years. The state education commissioner Richard P. Mill said that it was believed that such practice would prevent students from feeling discomfort to the topic while taking the exams. However, in an attempt to avoid offending the students, the authors of the excerpts were offended. The authors made a protest saying that this practice of editing passages is intellectually dishonest. It is a form of censorship that distorts the content and meaning of the works.
The above case study suggests the fact that it is hard to avoid offence or harm to everyone. The main objective for censorship is to ensure that people do not get offended. On the other hand, people may be offended when their rights are restricted and their copyrights are harmed. Good speech in this sense is hence, not a good solution to offence.
What if censorship was a solution?
Censorship is no easy feat. Some factors we have to consider before deciding if a statement is bad or good speech are the intentions of the speaker, the context in which it is spoken and the identities of the speaker and audience. The speaker could be a friend making a joke or a terrorist meaning to cause harm. Hate speech may be harmless if spoken at home but harmful if said at a speech. A statement of hate speech is more likely to be taken as offence if uttered by a politician than by a child. Also, a racist comment may anger an interracial crowd but not one with people of the same race. It is challenging to decide what should be censored and what should not. No one can be a fair judge to draw the boundaries; there is bound to be offence taken. For example, can we call a documentary of African tribes with naked women pornography? Also, even after deciding what to censor, not everything can be censored. For instance, people can still proceed with hate speech privately. Plus, who should be the one to decide what to censor? Should it be done by the general public in polls or by the lawmakers of the country? Without deciding where the exact boundaries lie, we cannot censor information
appropriately.
Another hindrance to censorship is the advent of the internet. The web has become a powerful tool for the distribution of information, one that has become nigh impossible to stop, evident through the widespread proliferation of illegal downloads and pornographic material. Content containing hate speech is posted online all the time in blogs and webpages, as well as popular websites such as Youtube, Veoh and Tudou. This content is so easily accessible and updated so often that anyone and everyone can view it. Even government attempts to censor websites they deem offensive are met with limited success as there are ways to bypass censors as well as alternative websites that people can view which pop up every day. Although, traditional media such as newspapers and television programs that are done by companies can still be easily censored of hate speech, e.g. the suspension of Mr Brown’s column in the Today newspaper. But in light of technological advancements, such censorship will become irrelevant in the future.
As such, in Singapore, the government has had to adapt and update its policies regarding censorship to keep up with the times. Measures it has taken to allow people more freedom of expression include the limited legalization of outdoor demonstrations as well as the relaxing of regulations governing the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park in Singapore, both of which were discussed in the recent Prime Minister’s Rally. The above changes are signs that the government is willing to take progressive steps for Singapore to become a more liberal society as the nation slowly matures. Still, the location for the Speakers Corner is a place that not many people will go to and it is very close to Chinatown. Thus, very few people in Singapore will get to hear what is said and the audience may be biased.
Many people have criticized the Singapore government on their strict policies and censorship of racial, religious and political issues. America is often used as a benchmark for human rights and freedom of expression. Critics of Singapore’s government and policies directly compare the policies of Singapore and America. However, we need to carefully examine the underlying reasons the government has for enforcing such restrictions as well as take note of the differences between the political and social scene of the two countries. Firstly, the in the span of Singapore’s relatively short history, it has experienced, most significantly, colonization by the British, occupation by the Japanese, merger with Malaysia and finally its own independence.
In Singapore’s early history, it has experienced several violent riots stemming from racial differences, an issue the British colonialists never thought to address. As such, in early Singapore, the four main ethnic groups hardly interacted and fostered strong bonds of tolerance and understanding with each other. This problem would eventually manifest itself through firstly the Maria Hertogh riots and later on, the racial riots in 1964 and 1969.
These riots have led to a fear that mentioning racial or religious issues will spark another riot, which will harm many lives and affect the economy. The government has built on this fear for many years by censoring such speech and continuously making comments on avoiding such hate speech. This had led to Singaporeans becoming paranoid about such issues and are reluctant to let go and speak their minds. How can we have a liberal society if the citizens fear speaking of such issues even though what they think may be relevant or important? A problem cannot be solved unless it is brought to light. Besides the relaxing of laws, we have to allow time for people to adapt and lose the fear of being punished. Therefore, the solution to bad speech is not good speech or censorship, as this will build on the fear that has been there for so long, but a slow acceptance of the presence of bad speech and the allowing of people to decide what is offensive or not on their own. A safe channel for free expression of such thoughts is hence required in order not to cause riot.