A review of definitions in the literature, however, identifies multiple interpretations of hate speech, with some potentially more harmful for its targets than others. This is in part due to attempts to automate its detection or censor/sanction it, thus needing clear demarcations to classify when a piece of communication is or is not hate speech. These should include but not be limited to: race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, indigenous origin or identity, disability, migrant or refugee status, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.Hate speech is often seen as a binary choice. With sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression, we consider that ensuring ‘hate speech’ provisions should be inclusive of the broadest range of protected characteristics. Many States recognise protected characteristics in national laws prohibiting ‘hate speech’, which are reflective of the characteristics protected under their broader obligations to guarantee equality and non-discrimination. While this may seem obvious, it is sometimes contested.Ī patchwork of overlapping international and regional instruments has resulted in divergent approaches to different forms of ‘hate speech’ in domestic law, including in relation to the protected characteristics.ĪRTICLE 19 argues that the realisation of human rights should not be constrained by an overly formalistic commitment to the original wording of any international legal instrument, or even to the intent of the drafters, if that interpretation would unnecessarily narrow the enjoyment of rights.Īlso, international human rights instruments have been interpreted over time to support the principle of equality on a broad understanding of the term, applying to protected characteristics specifically listed in treaties as well as to grounds not expressly listed. ‘Hate speech’ targets people because of who they are.ĪRTICLE 19 considers that grounds for protection against ‘hate speech’ should include all those protected characteristics which appear under the broader non-discrimination provisions of international human rights law. On the other hand, laws are abused to target legitimate dissent in many parts of the world when such speech should be protected.
On the one hand, powerful individuals incite or threaten violence with impunity where they should be held accountable. Confusion has led to many laws being enacted that do not comply with international human rights law.īut around the world we see problems with “hate speech” laws defined by governments. Generally speaking, national governments define these terms in their own laws, which is why approaches vary so greatly between countries. Restricting direct threats of discriminatory violence, for example, may also be restricted. These types of expression may be understood as the most severe forms of “hate speech”, namely the advocacy of discriminatory hatred which is intended and likely to incite violence, hostility, or discrimination. However, governments are required to limit expression where it is so clearly dangerous that limitations are the only way to prevent serious harms. International human rights law is clear that expression cannot be limited solely on the basis that it is offensive or insulting, and this includes speech that may be hateful and discriminatory. Such speech undeniably has a negative impact on societies, in particular for minority and marginalised groups. “Hate speech” is a very broad term – and can be used to describe any discriminatory expression that denies the humanity of others or incites harm. But what exactly is ‘hate speech’? There is no universally agreed legal definition of “hate speech”.