Drawing The Elusive Line Between Free Speech and Hate Speech
On paper, the primary distinction between hate speech and free speech lies in their intentions: one seeks to incite violence and chaos; the other aims to express beliefs. However, discerning between the two raises critical questions: should we regulate people's ideas – and if so, how do we identify the difference between the two kinds of speech –, and what constitutes a violation of the First Amendment or other founding documents globally? Answering these presents a formidable challenge – and the clock is ticking as the world changes and becomes increasingly online.
While the foundation of free speech resonates with patriotism and democracy, the roots of hate speech do not – and are perhaps antithetical to these ideals – and its recent surge is a cause for concern. The line between these two realms is growing increasingly thin, exacerbated by the proliferation of social media and AI. How do we determine where to draw this elusive line as a society? It's a complex task. Addressing this issue requires the collective responsibility of all members of society, not solely relying on the government's opinion and as a society, we decide what we are willing to tolerate.
Approximately 2,500 years ago, Athenian Democracy marked the first instance of recorded free speech. The ancient Greeks were pioneers of the free speech movement and the government encouraged its citizens to question authority, ideas, and literature. Parhesia is a Greek concept which allowed Greek peoples to speak freely and without worry of repercussions. Parhesia has become a cornerstone of all democratic societies, including the United States. It catalyzes political debates, scandals, relationships, and more. Hate speech does the opposite. Often rooted in attacks on gender, religion, ethnicity, or race, hate speech has led to discrimination and violence. Hate speech threatens democracy when certain individuals targeted become increasingly excluded from society and debate. The challenge lies in deciphering when expressing one's beliefs transforms into hate speech targeting individuals or communities.
Comparing democracies and autocracies provides valuable information on how freedom of speech impacts people on a regular day. As I have discussed in this piece, the people of the United States can express their opinions without fear of persecution and can do so online, in large gatherings, or however they see fit. On the other hand, although Russia’s constitution provides freedom of speech, it is ambiguous and not protected by the government. Russian authorities can suppress societal, economic, or political ideas like most authoritarian governments. This also affects journalism and media, and speaking your mind can cost you tens of thousands of dollars, jail, or even death. Freedom of speech allows people to speak their minds, access information, and speak on their beliefs; without it, societies stand still and make no progress.
Although freedom of speech is a constitutional right, there are anomalies. Individuals can still be held accountable for defamation of character, retractions, and libel. With the rising popularity of online platforms, people can easily share their thoughts with a global audience. This has led to discussions about negativity and censorship in the online world. Being able to voice your opinion on a piece of music, art, government, and people, whether negative or positive, is part of the Greek concept of Parhesia and protected by the constitution in the United States. However, when that negativity begins to shame people for something they cannot control or when people seek to promote violence, that becomes an issue.
The advent of media and technology has made challenging freedom of speech more difficult, particularly with the intensification of cancel culture. Social media, a significant player in this landscape, has facilitated the rapid spread of dis- and mis-information. Moderating discussions on these platforms is essential to maintain brand integrity and client relationships, but finding a practical approach remains a work in progress. This is truly essential in helping individuals and institutions drawing the line between free and hate speech. Social media platforms use algorithms to curate specific content. While this is often helpful, it also creates an echo chamber where users are only exposed to one view. Additionally, because most social media platforms are private companies, they set their own rules as to what can be said and what will be penalized. This sets the platforms to have the same views as the developers, and also predisposes users to that same perspective.
A key solution to these challenges lies in discourse. Education, awareness, and open dialogue are essential first steps in helping individuals differentiate between expressing their opinions and infringing on someone else's freedom. Laws and regulations are not doing enough. There has to be more to effectively address these issues. By educating communities, it is hopeful that the rise of hate speech will plateau. It is the responsibility of social media platforms, their creators, and operators to ensure safety. This could mean flagging disinformation or hateful language to signal to viewers it is not to be trusted. This could mean getting approval to label something as “news”. In an increasingly complex world, we must have conversations about topics that have been avoided. This is one of those issues. Ultimately, balancing personal expressions and promoting a compassionate world is an extraordinarily challenging yet crucial endeavor. It requires continuous effort and a collective commitment to building a society where freedom of speech coexists with respect for others.
Valentina Kuschnir is a senior in High School. Valentina is passionate about immigration and has worked on projects including translation help for asylum seekers, greeting migrants at Port Authority, and sorting donations. She also loves to read and write which has inspired her passion for law, journalism, and history.