Thai opinion: If hate speech is dangerous, banning it is more so

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
If hate speech is dangerous, banning it is more so
Tulsathit Taptim

BANGKOK: -- The greatest trick "hate speech" has ever pulled is, it seems, to exist only on "the other side". Which is why the Constitution Drafting Committee's idea to make it illegal will only scratch the surface of the problem. "Hate speech" is abstract, highly subjective and absolutely capable of making anyone a hypocrite. Most of all, it can come in various forms, even in the most beautiful language.

You can take this article and describe it as hate speech. Why not? It lambastes hypocrisy, and thus encourages people to "hate" hypocrites. It demonstrates a degree of contempt, and contempt is a key ingredient of hate speech. It will surely make some people angry, and what triggers anger also causes hatred, doesn't it?

Let me be clear on one thing. The assumption that Thailand's political divide has a lot to do with hate speech in both the conventional and social media is reasonable. Banning hate speech, however, is not the right solution. And that's not only because people actually need to let off steam, but also because there is no way to do it fairly.

"Hate speech" is judged or measured by emotions. I can say to a woman "You bitch!" and be cute in the process. In the same way, she can say to me "You rat!" and get kisses in return. In the political world, a columnist who calls a female politician a slut can't credibly claim he meant it affectionately, but you get my point. Feelings are the hardest thing to judge, let alone tackle with legal measures.

And what about political cartoons or those doctored photos, or genuine ones with "creative" captions? Some laugh at them, but others are genuinely angered by their content. Are they hate speech? And who will decide that? If, say, extra-judicial killings are carried out by the army or the police and a cartoon depicts the prime minister holding a bloodied sword, is that hate speech or social commentary?

Moreover, there are plenty of hate-speech haters out there who get carried away and fail to practice what they preach. How should we classify these people? They are usually polite and often draw "Likes" and supportive comments for their Facebook posts, but they alternate between looking down from their high horse and getting off it to join the fray, albeit unknowingly.

Hate-speech haters can be selective as well. They may raise hell when someone they don't like says something, then go quiet when a similar or worse statement comes from someone else. Selective hate-speech haters are not hard to spot, as the Thai political divide generates volatile remarks from both sides on a daily basis.

Last but not least is the "Who-did-it-first?" dilemma. What if someone arrested or fined for calling someone a moron claims he is responding to somebody else who called yet another person an airhead? Should the other suspect face legal action too? If so, what if this other suspect insists he was responding to an offensive remark on YouTube's comment section? It could go all the way back to the beginning of time.

Yet words like "whore", "stupid" or "murderer" are easier to deal with than another form of hate speech. This tricky type of hate speech uses normal language to amplify misunderstandings or flaws of the other side. Polite generalisation - using words like "slaves" or "elites" - can gradually build resentment, which can easily turn into hatred.

There you have it. Hate speech is a lot more subtle, prevalent and complex than you think. It does not necessarily provoke outright anger or hatred. It can cause one to first feel low and sorry for oneself, but that self-pity can turn into wrath, and the wrath can fester. It can have the same effect as pillow talk - slow but sure.

Since hate speech can be virtually everywhere - on rally stages, in opinion columns, on TV, in Facebook posts condemning political wrongdoings, or during seminars held to decry rampant verbal abuse - what should we do about it? Throwing the hate-speech makers in jail or fining them won't work, for all the reasons mentioned above. Unfair treatment of hate-speech makers will only magnify the hatred, defeating the apparently noble purpose.

The trick is to expose hate speech's greatest trick. And that task belongs to all of us, not charter drafters. We must first accept that it's not just the other side that is using hate speech, but that we are, too - unknowingly or not. Keep that in mind when taking the microphone or clicking "publish", and hopefully hate speech will be less intense one day and we won't need politicians or "reformists" to tell us what to say.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/If-hate-speech-is-dangerous-banning-it-is-more-so-30252301.html


-- The Nation 2015-01-21

[yellowboat]

It is better to just focus on an actual offense rather than putting a label on it. Slander is a law. It has a clear definition. Hate is an emotion.

[ChrisY1]

Maybe "hate speech' outlawing will sit well alongside LM and computer crimes.......then anyone can be prosecuted.......if you don't like them.

[chainarong]

There is no room in life for hate so don't portray it as anything else , there is no room for racial vilification , there is no room for people who torment people because they are different ,all these three need to be addressed, a hate speech is just that regardless of who started it or why , any hate speaker should be shut down and the law should be such that penalties are in line with the offence, life is to short to hate.

[steven100]

There is no room in life for hate so don't portray it as anything else , there is no room for racial vilification , there is no room for people who torment people because they are different ,all these three need to be addressed, a hate speech is just that regardless of who started it or why , any hate speaker should be shut down and the law should be such that penalties are in line with the offence, life is to short to hate.

I hate everyone ....... so sue me ..

[yellowboat]

There is no room in life for hate so don't portray it as anything else , there is no room for racial vilification , there is no room for people who torment people because they are different ,all these three need to be addressed, a hate speech is just that regardless of who started it or why , any hate speaker should be shut down and the law should be such that penalties are in line with the offence, life is to short to hate.

I hate everyone ....... so sue me ..

Wow, agreeing with that statement is probably going to ruin the rest of my day.

There is no room for hate, but that ought not make it illegal. Adding emotions into laws allows for too much interpretation. Emotions come in to play when guilt is established and punishment is considered.

[Traveler19491]

Regulating "hate speech" is nothing more than censorship clothed in a publicly palatable disguise. The problem with attempting to outlaw "hate speech" lies in the definition. As the article points out, who gets to decide? There can be no open and shut definition, ergo the very real risk of such a law being abused. Every individual must be free to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive. The Catholic church silenced Galileo and Copernicus because they did not agree with them. Galileo and Copernicus dared to challenge what was then considered to be Biblical orthodoxy. Today's religious right would do the same to scientists researching evolution, or medical treatments involving embryonic stem cells. This is the logical extreme of regulated speech. A government armed with any law that permits the silencing of speech in whatever form becomes way too powerful. The responsibility for silencing hate speech should lie with the public, and not government. Individual citizens must confront the hater, and expose the speech for what it is...worthless words intended only to cause pain, or inflame passions. This must be the responsibility of each citizen in a free society. Once that responsibility is ceded to the government, we lose a large measure of our freedom.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Traveler19491

[Thakkar]

The OP doesn't seem to understand what hate speech is as a legal term.

Laws against hate speech do not curtail free speech. Hate speech is speech that incites violence against a particular identifiable group by religion skin color, ethnicity, etc. in Nazi Germany the pogrom against Jews and Gypsies began with hate speech. The result was the incarceration and death of millions based purely on their religion or ethnicity.

The massacre of nine hundred thousand Tutsi in Rwanda in the 1990's began with hate speech that incited violence against them.

This is hate speech, and it should be (and in many developed countries, is) outlawed.

Having said that, if the law were to be written badly or too vaguely, or interpreted too broadlyas some laws in Thailand arethen it would be prone to abuse and could do more harm than good. Sadly, the concept of law here by the ruling elite seems be "rule by law" rather than "rule of law"

T