Should Democracies Ban Hate Speech?

The goal of this paper is to develop a normative framework for justifiable hate speech regulation. The first part of the paper discusses different theoretical justifications for banning or regulating hate speech by both governmental and non-governmental actors. The paper looks at five such justifications. Firstly, the line of argument developed by critical race theorists that assumes hate speech leads to the direct harm and violation of rights of individuals. Secondly, the Weimar model that rests on the assumption that hate speech can lead to indirect harm to members of vulnerable minorities by creating a toxic environment, which opens the door to discrimination and even violence. This model relies on the theory of militant democracy as a response to extreme political rhetoric used by undemocratic political movements. Thirdly, the justification which is derived from the idea that such forms of extreme public speech violate the basic values and principles – such as inclusiveness, equality and mutual respect - on which constitutional democracies are built and therefore do not deserve to be protected as a legitimate form of free speech. The fourth approach extends this argument from general values to the status of citizens by arguing that hate speech violates the equal standing of citizens by attempting to exclude certain members of society from the process of democratic deliberation based on their ascriptive characteristics. Finally, the paper discusses calls for a ban on hate speech on the basis of maintaining public peace by ensuring that statements and symbols that can incite violence are removed from the public space. After introducing and discussing the five approaches to hate speech, the paper will develop a working framework for regulating hate speech in the public sphere.