Retributions  

I am not a libertarian, but there is one aspect of libertarian thought to which I find myself increasingly in agreement with. The respect for hate speech. Hate speech is speech said to promote dislike or hatred of a group or groups, particularly those of a certain race or sexual orientation.

Broadly speaking , hate speech could be defined in two ways. Firstly, by a set of pre-conceived notions about what constitutes hate speech, example calling a Black person a Nigger. The second way, is to define hate speech from how people have reacted to it. So, something is hate speech if it has provoked a rational group of people in to reactions which are bizarre and irrational.

The first definition is more tenable, after all why should you call a Black person be called a Nigger?But it does present a few problems. Firstly, it is not fair, e.g a Black guy can call a White person a SCAB and get away with it, because the US constitution (specifically the 14th amendment) protects only minority groups. Secondly, it promotes a sense of community identification. If I call a Black guy Nigger or if he call me a dirty Indian, why should people who belong to our respective groups only by the quirk of chance take offense? I think the World would be better off if we thought more as individuals rather than groups. No?

Unfortunately, the world is increasingly defining hate speech as how a narrow group of people react to it. The best example would be the controversy surrounding the publication of the infamous Danish cartoons. Now, anyone who has seen those cartoons would readily concede that while they are in bad taste, apart from being singularly unfunny, but they certainly do not constitute hate speech. But millions, who have never seen those cartoons and never will have protested and scores have been killed. Why? Perhaps, because they understand that violence is the easiest way to air their perceived grievances. Of course, the loudest to protest were the Iranians who seem to use the term ”Zionist conspiracy” almost as an endearment. It is a dangerous trend which we see increasingly in this world, where anything which is mildly offensive, or does not appeal to pre-set ideas of a section of population is branded as hate speech. Whether it is the Islamo-fascists who demand death against Rushdie or the Shiv Sena loonies who took to the streets just because Laine hinted that Shivaji had a relationship with his mother. I am not a historian, and I am unable to vouch for the historical veracity of such a belief, but is that a reason to burn Bhandarkar institute? In fact, even the truth is not a defense. Deepa’ Mehta’s Water met violent protests because it depicted how Hindus treated the widows. Not even the protesters denied that what the movie was trying to say was wrong, still it somehow was hurting ”Hindu sentiments”. Of course, the spineless and gutless government is too eager to crawl when asked to bend.Pah…If your sentiments are hurt by truth, then you better discard them.

Philosophically, is hate bad by itself? After all hatred of hate speech is hatred too, an acknowledgment that hate is just another human emotion like love, perhaps not so desirable but nevertheless unavoidable. Anyways, whats better? When people talk with their mouths or fight with their fists? I suspect hate speech does help people let out some of the steam. And frankly, freedom of speech is such a precious ideal, that ordinarily nothing should be curtail it.

So, do I support unfettered freedom for hate speech. Well, Anyone saying ”all Indians are dirty” is fine but if the same person says ”all Indians are dirty and hence should be killed”….that’s where I draw my line.

What about you?