Parallels with the hate speech debate: the pros and cons of criminalising harmful securitising requests

Abstract

This article argues that public expressions of Islamophobia are best understood assecuritising requests(that is, calls on powerful figures/bodies to treat an issue in security mode so that extraordinary measures can be used to combat it), especially in those cases where Muslims are feared and disliked because of the perception that Islamic people are prone to terrorism. This article argues that harmful and derogatory securitising requests targeting racial, ethnic, or religious minorities are on par with hate speech and it highlights the fact that many contemporary societies are now seeking legal protections against such security speech (expressed most notably in the desire to ban Islamophobia). It is from this perspective that this article poses an important research question: With a view to protecting those adversely affected, are legal protections against harmful and offensive securitising requests justified? The research question can be answered by drawing parallels to the existing hate speech debate in legal and political theory. The research reveals that, although the case against legal protections of harmful and defamatory security speech is ultimately more convincing, security speech alone can be so damaging that it should be informed by a number of ethical considerations. This article goes on to suggest three criteria for governing the ethics of requesting securitisation. As such this article fills a lacuna in the ‘positive/negative debate’ on the ethics of security that has engaged with securitisation, but that has failed to consider the ethics of speaking security.

Hate Speech Legislation and Freedom of Expression: Finding the Balance

“…This seemingly niche study reveals the broader implications of online discourse in shaping and reflecting societal attitudes, including those that may veer into hate speech (Felberg & Šarić, 2021). Floyd (2017) draws parallels between the debate on hate speech and the concept of harmful securitising requests, arguing for a critical examination of the consequences of criminalizing certain forms of speech. This comparison opens up new avenues for understanding the broader implications of speech regulation on security and freedom (Floyd, 2017).…”

“…Floyd (2017) draws parallels between the debate on hate speech and the concept of harmful securitising requests, arguing for a critical examination of the consequences of criminalizing certain forms of speech. This comparison opens up new avenues for understanding the broader implications of speech regulation on security and freedom (Floyd, 2017). Gitari et al (2015) contribute to the technical aspect of hate speech detection, proposing a lexicon-based approach for identifying hate speech in digital communications.…”

Collective securitisation in the EU: normative dimensions

“…The question if and when securitization -as policy change not simply as speech act coupled with audience acceptance -can be justified from a moral point of view has informed my own research for a number of years now (Floyd, 2007(Floyd, , 2011(Floyd, , 2015(Floyd, , 2016a(Floyd, , 2017(Floyd, , 2018 and forthcoming 2019). Contrary to the majority of securitization scholars concerned with the ethics of security (Aradau, 2004;Huysmans, 2006;Waever, 2011), I have suggested that securitization can be just, in the sense of being morally permissible provided that a number of conditions are met, including inter alia that there is a just cause (consisting of both a real threat and a just referent object), that it is a proportionate response to a given threat, that securitizing actors are sincere in their intentions and that securitization has a reasonable chance of succeeding in achieving the just cause.…”