Hate speech for beginners

One common place in Croatian politics, when talking about how we will write laws, is the phrase that "the profession should have the main say". It is, of course, a solid principle, in the sense that the profession should present the state of affairs to us, guide us to what is really important.

However, expertise is only one half of writing good laws: in addition to expertise, politics is also needed. Politicians are there to interpret the facts, and based on them make decisions about what and in which direction the laws will go; how they will edit the problem.

If you allow me to joke a little and paraphrase Kant, I would say that politics without a profession is blind, and a profession without politics is empty.

Hate speech has been one of the central topics of Croatian politics for years. So, a linguistic phenomenon. Coincidentally, since I am a linguist (and linguistics is the science of language) who was elected to the Parliament, this puts me in a position where I can talk about this topic from both a professional and political perspective.

That's why, as a linguist, I feel obliged to contribute to this discussion by hopefully clearing up some doubts about what hate speech is and what are some of its essential features.

In the debate about hate speech, which is neither well-argued nor meaningful at all times, there are two political positions - a smaller part believes that freedom of speech should be absolute, so that hate speech should not be sanctioned; the majority, including myself, believe that freedom of speech is not freedom of hate speech.

First of all, it should be said that language and speech do not exist in some empty space, virtual and separated from the social reality in which we live. When we speak, we do so with the aim of acting in the world.

Our words can state something, so we can check whether it is true or not, and they can also be actions, which have very real effects and consequences. Hate speech belongs to this second category.

Here is a possible definition: hate speech is a speech act, the purpose and meaning of which is to dehumanize a group or individual, and thus make it a legitimate target of violence.

There are other elements that are important, and I will list only some of them: it is important who speaks and how much power he has; in popular terms, it is not only what is said that is important, but also who says it.

The context is also important, as is the intention of the speaker - there is always a lot of talk about the importance of distinguishing between satire and hate speech, so I will not argue this position separately. I consider it a general place.

The message itself is important: it can be contained in words - spoken or written - and it can be contained in some other type of sign. For example, in the insignia of Nazi military units or in the insignia of their Quisling allies, which are another regular subject of public debate in Croatia.

Different definitions of hate speech are possible, of course. We should not expect absolute truths from science - science does not deal with that. This is what religions deal with. Science can offer us a description of the phenomenon and its effects, based on observation and verification by scientific methods.

Hate speech should be regulated because it is harmful to society, groups and individuals. If anyone doubts that, let them visit Yad Vashem or Jasenovac. There, the effects of hate speech are very well documented. Unfortunately, there are many more examples.

I think that all of us who believe that freedom of speech is not freedom of hate speech are responsible for suppressing hate speech.

If someone writes "kill a Serb" on my house, I am not responsible for that act. But if I don't remove such a message, if I don't report it to the police or utilities, I become co-responsible.

At the very end, one caveat: the experience of life in Croatia teaches us that there are no laws that cannot be broken. This will certainly be the case with the law that will one day regulate hate speech.

This should not discourage us in the fight against hate speech that pollutes the space of public communication, especially social networks. There certainly won't be overnight success, and it won't happen even if we limit ourselves to sanctioning violations of the law in this fight.

Namely, the fight against hate speech is only one front in a much wider fight, which is the fight for a peaceful society.

Without civic education in schools, without working with young people to deal with the past, without building social solidarity, without working to make our society a positive and healthy place to live - all the sanctions for hate speech that we can think of are useless.

We must not lose sight of that real goal, however difficult it may be at times, amid all the challenges and problems we face.

(autograf.hr)