Hate Speech and Authentic Personhood: Unveiling the Truth

Abstract

We often think that individuals should live their lives in ways they are convinced are most appropriate to their self-understanding and beliefs. However, we equally think that this idea of living according to one’s convictions and self-understanding does not mean endorsement of forms of speech that injure the person and dignity of others. So far, the debate on hate speech has revolved around the justification of its protection and prohibition. In this article, we examine the idea of hate speech through the lens of authentic personhood, the foundation upon which most arguments for and against speech restriction are based. The aim is to demonstrate that the state restricting speech may be as justified as the one protecting it, seeing that in reality, hate speech both violates and vindicates authentic personhood. Given the nature and structure of “autonomy” and “speech,” a balancing approach to free expression and equality is preferable to outright protection or prohibition of hate speech.

Right to Freedom of Expression v. Reputation Protection (Based on ECtHR Practice Materials)

“…For example, democratic governments have restricted freedom of speech in the case of hate speech (Weinstein & Hare, 2009;Reid, 2020). The principle of scientific knowledge objectivity necessitates the essentiality to note the desire of some scientists to draw attention to both the positive aspects of the hate speech prohibition and the manifestation of human personality through this phenomenon (Asogwa & Onwuama, 2021), the necessity to divide the discussion on the hate speech prohibition into separate analytical stages determining whether this phenomenon is part of the realm of law and the moral aspect of freedom of expression (Howard, 2019), the principle of proportionality as a criterion for verifying the legitimacy of restrictions on freedom of expression is criticized and a justifiable approach is suggested as a criterion (Gunatilleke, 2021).…”