As a news editor would you publish an article that was regarded by some as constituting hate speech? If so why and if not why not?

董雯静

Everyone has easy access to read articles in the newspaper and magazines， and the media is a vital， quick and convenient way to obtain information for everyone （Gillmor， 2006）. As a news editor， I prefer not to publish some articles， which contain some contents with hate speech. There are some reasons supporting my opinion. Firstly， hate speech may undermine the public good of inclusivity. Secondly， hate speech contributes to devalue peoples dignity and lower some peoples social status. Thirdly， hate speech is likely to evoke public upheaval and the violence. In this essay， I will mainly focus on analyzing these three disadvantages of publishing articles with some elements constituting hate speech.

Before analyzing these three disadvantages， it is important to clarify the definition of “hate speech”. According to Waldron （2012）， he uses an example of a Muslim father and his daughter to describe what is hate speech. Hate speech is a limitation of the principle of publicity， and he believes that hate speech is a way to release hatred and show hostility. The most obvious characteristic caused by publications with hate speech is bringing harm to some people， because these publications express disrespect and hatred.

For the whole society， news with hate speech can spread an improper value system and undermine the public good of inclusivity. A large number of immigrants from other counties are living in the United States， but most of them are not satisfied with their lives because of hate speech （Walker， 1994）. Based on a study of the relationship between suicide rates among ethnic immigrant groups and hate speech in the United States， its data covered some European ethnic immigrant groups during 1950s， and the research results showed that immigrant suicide rates is strongly correlated with hate speech. Most of them acknowledged that they often suffered from discrimination to varying degrees in their lives because some hate speech expressed that immigrants are poor and lack of knowledge， and they may have a harmful impact on social stability （Mullen& Smyth， 2004）. Also， another supportive research created the relationship between immigrants and hate speech. According to The Sun （2015）， Katie Hopkins Column published an article titled “Rescue boats？ I'd use gunships to stop migrants” in The Sun. In this article， immigrants are regarded as cockroaches with a strong expression of resentment for immigrants. In this way， this category of articles and publications facilitates to build the negative image of immigrants and exert an effect on the public attitudes towards immigrants， leading to a growing public dissatisfaction about the decision of absorbing immigrants made by the government （Gring-Pemble， 2012）. This phenomenon hurts the immigrants feelings and it is not conducive to the maintenance of social welfare. Meanwhile， some other individuals are also affected by the publications with hate speech， including drug users and criminals. Some media publish news and reports with hate speech that portray drug users and criminals as the devils， and claim that once people smoke up or commit to a crime， they will never give up it and they do not deserve public sympathy and help （Jacobs& Potter， 2000）. Such kind of publications refuses to provide these persons with opportunities to correct themselves and express little humanitarian care for the special population. By this means， those who are released from prisons and strop having drugs may find it hard to reform themselves， because they are unwelcome by the public and difficult to be recognized， although they do their best to improve themselves （Baez， 2013）. Consequently， social inclusion， public sympathy for people in need， and the public good of inclusivity will be undermined with time， which will give rise to the inharmony of the society.

For individuals and the members of minority groups， the dignity sometimes is violated by publications with hate speech. To some extent， hate speech has the power to damage the normal life of some people， because it can be easily used as a tool to slander and hurt people （Schweitzer， 1994）. The contents of hate speech normally include racism and sexism， and this has an adverse impact on some individuals （Nielsen， 2002）. First of all， the racial discrimination is a serious problem in the United States due to hate speech. The black people， as a weak community in the United States， have been suffering from the discrimination for hundreds of years. Even at school， a majority of black students have been discriminated， stigmatized and beaten by white students and some teachers， although the academic performance of some black students is better than some white students （Matsuda， 1989）. Since hate speech was allowed to be published in the United States， the traditional prejudice has long been formed through reading articles on social media and watching some programmes. What was worse， it even had a negative impact on the children in school. For instance， in some states， black children are not allowed to enter public schools， and sometimes they are not provided with the same opportunities as white children to join the activities organised by the Student Union （Strossen， 1990）. Furthermore， in 1987， a racial incident related to hate speech happened in the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Many leaflets were distributed on campus， which wrote some jokes about an affront to the dignity of coloured people. In addition， the university broadcast station also played some music related to discrimination against the blacks （Byrne， 1990）. From these events， it is not difficult to conclude that considerable black people are suffering from poor living conditions in these areas where hate speech can be spread freely in public. Secondly， gender discrimination is closely related to hate speech， and consequently， many women are the victims of gender discrimination. A great deal of investigations on sexist incidents have been recorded over the past decades. Several examples can be counted for. In most companies in United States， women and man are paid differently in the same position. In general， men earn a higher salary than women， although there is no difference in their working ability （Glick， 1991）. When graduates seek for a job opportunities in work market， man are easier to be employed than women， because as displayed in some television programmes and publications， the female have been regarded as the subordinates and described as the weaker ones compared with man （Bielby & Baron， 1986）. In addition， some media publish pornographies，  which do huge harm to women by focusing on the female sexual body in order to please and attract reader， especially the male audience. It shows severe disrespect for women. If people often watch these programmes and read these publications， it will greatly influence people to develop a harmful gender perspective and a prejudiced attitude toward women （Weinstein， 1999）. Thus， it is clear that hate speech sometimes serves as a tool to hurt the psychological conditions of innocent people who do not make any mistakes and the impact of hate speech on these people may become increasingly serious， leading to degrade their quality of life and trample their dignity.

In terms of nations， publishing something related to hate speech is a fearful phenomenon， because it will encourage public behaviours of upheaval and crime. If hate speech cannot be controlled to spread in public， it will put citizens into the risk of social unrest， leading to a high crime rate in the society （Tsesis， 2002）. First and foremost， publications with hate speech sometimes can lead the public opinion to a wrong way for the reason that hate speech fabricates stories to slander some certain category of people and behaviours. If some news and reports with hate speech publish the dissatisfaction with the ruling party and national policies by using bad words， it will weaken the position of national leaders and the state authority， as well as affect the security and stability of the whole country. In Japan， the struggles among political parties have become growingly serious in recent decades. Japanese right wings propagandised ethnocentricity via television， radio， newspaper and other channels. They were not satisfied with existing political policies， and they have a tendency to drive the government to deviate to the right in order to provoke a war. Moreover， they distorted history and were involved in some extreme events， such as burning their flags and demonstrations （Siegel， 1998）. The main consequence of hate-speech publications is encouraging some people who are easily influenced by these publications and are likely to do some crazy things to create great disruption and engender dissatisfaction with the government. This， in turn， can result in the disordered situation and a decrease in legal authority in a country. Secondly， publications with hate speech are probable to cause religious discrimination， leading to the bloodshed and violence. According to the Kangura newspaper， some articles and cartoons emerged from around 1990 whose content was about anti-Tutsi. Some bad jokes and pop music with some anti-Tutsi statements were broadcasted in the Station in order to attract unemployees， criminals， and illegal militant groups. These radios have led directly to violence and crimes， causing a large number of deaths of Tutsis （Yanagizawa-Drott， 2011）. There is also another example supporting this opinion. A shooting attack occurred in the offices of French weekly Charlie Hebdo on 7th January 2015 by two self-proclaimed Islamist， because Charlie Hebdo published some articles and cartoons， which strongly expressed dissatisfaction with Islamism by using hate speech （Giglietto& Lee， 2015）. This act of violence could have been avoided if some regulations had been putted on publications with hate speech. From this perspective， if a large number of publications with hate speech can be published without limitations， it will fuel social instability and worsen the situation in a country， and the authority of legal state will face great challenges.

However， some people have strong advocates of publishing something with hate speech， because these publications obey the rules of the absolute and unconditional freedom of expression， leading to the truth. According to the viewpoint made out by Lewis （2010）， he believes that it is beneficial for the public and the society to adopt an open attitude towards hate speech， which cana help people gain a deep insight into the world from a more comprehensive aspect. In this way， hate speech may provide people with an objective understanding of the state policies， and it also may enable people to realise some negative parts of some polices in order to prompt the law makers to revise some policies. The most important aspect is that these publications with hate speech offer journalists and people opportunities to express their different ideas. As a result， the dark side of the society and corruption cases might be fully exposed to the public by publications with hate speech  that journalists presented. Firstly， some research suggestes that the news with little hate speech reported by journalists is an effective way to disclose corruption practices of people at high position and reveal sex scandals of some corrupt government officials. These types of reports and publications may put pressure on the government and officials， forcing them fearing for corruption （Peters， 2003）. Secondly， such publications may also directly link to some social problems， such as the housing shortage， to attract public attentions. With respect of it， the government would be under overwhelming pressure to adopt some measures to tackle some problems， although such publications and the news coverage may hurt some people mentally at psychic level （Hilgartner& Bosk， 1988）. For these reasons， in some areas， publishing something with hate speech sometimes may benefit the society and assist to solve some social problems to some degree.

In conclusion， in terms of the society， individuals， the members of minority groups and the nation， I have analyzed the disadvantages and the advantages of publishing something with hate speech. The disadvantages of publishing generally out-weight the advantages. Even though publications with hate speech may reveal some social problems and exert pressure on the government in a good way， there are more disadvantages regarding this， because such publications are easy to be used as weapons to hurt and slander people， and provoke violent acts. The potential disadvantages sometimes will not come forth immediately， but the damages caused by publications with hate speech are massive and cannot be ignored. For the reasons mentioned above， as a news editor， I prefer not to publish an article that was regarded by some as constituting hate speech.

References

[1] Anon， （2015）. Katie Hopkins Column： Rescue boats？ I'd use gunships to stop migrants. The Sun， Friday April 17 2015.

[2] Baez， B.， （2013）. Affirmative action， hate speech， and tenure： Narratives about race and law in the academy. Routledge.

[3] Bielby， W.T. and Baron， J.N.， （1986）. Men and women at work： Sex segregation and statistical discrimination. American journal of sociology， pp.759-799.

[4] Byrne， J.P.， （1990）. Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University.Geo. LJ， 79， p.399.

[5] Giglietto， F. and Lee， Y.， （2015）. To Be or Not to Be Charlie： Twitter hashtags as a discourse and counter-discourse in the aftermath of the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting in France. Rowe et al.[14]， pages.

[6] Gillmor， D.， （2006）. We the media： Grassroots journalism by the people， for the people. " O'Reilly Media， Inc.".

[7] Glick， P.， （1991）. Trait-based and sex-based discrimination in occupational prestige， occupational salary， and hiring. Sex Roles， 25（5-6）， pp.351-378.

[8] Gring-Pemble， L.M.， （2012）. “It's We the People…， Not We the Illegals”： Extreme Speech in Prince William County， Virginia's Immigration Debate.Communication Quarterly， 60（5）， pp.624-648.

[9] Hilgartner， S. and Bosk， C.L.， （1988）. The rise and fall of social problems： A public arenas model. American journal of Sociology， pp.53-78.

[10] Jacobs， J.B. and Potter， K.， （2000）. Hate crimes： Criminal law and identity politics. Oxford University Press.

[11] Lewis， A.， （2010）. Freedom for the thought that we hate： A biography of the First Amendment. Basic Books.

[12] Matsuda， M.J.， （1989）. Public response to racist speech： Considering the victim's story. Michigan Law Review， 87（8）， pp.2320-2381.

[13] Mullen， B. and Smyth， J.M.， （2004）. Immigrant suicide rates as a function of ethnophaulisms： Hate speech predicts death. Psychosomatic Medicine，66（3）， pp.343-348.

[14] Nielsen， L.B.， （2002）. Subtle， pervasive， harmful： Racist and sexist remarks in public as hate speech. Journal of Social Issues， 58（2）， pp.265-280.

[15] Peters， B.， （2003）. The Medias Role： Covering or Covering Up Corruption？.Global Corruption Report， pp.44-56.

[16] Schweitzer， T.A.， （1994）. Hate Speech on Campus and the First Amendment： Can They be Reconciled. Conn. L. Rev.， 27， p.493.

[17] Siegel， M.L.， （1998）. Hate speech， civil rights， and the Internet： The jurisdictional and human rights nightmare. Alb. LJ Sci. & Tech.， 9， p.375.

[18] Strossen， N.， （1990）. Regulating Racist Speech on Campus： A Modest Proposal？. Duke Law Journal， 1990（3）， pp.484-573.

[19] Tsesis， A.，（2002）. Destructive messages： How hate speech paves the way for harmful social movements （Vol. 778）. NYU Press.

[20] Waldron， J.， （2012）. The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press.

[21] Walker， S.， （1994）. Hate speech： The history of an American controversy. U of Nebraska Press.

[22] Weinstein， J.， （1999）. Hate speech， pornography， and the radical attack on free speech doctrine. Westview Press.

[23] Yanagizawa-Drott， D.， （2011）. Propaganda vs. Education： A Case Study of Hate Radio in Rwanda.