How censorship is created under the guise of ‘hate speech’

Author Justas Stankevičius

According to the official page of the human rights guide, hate speech promotes hatred or violence against a person or their groups according to certain characteristics. Hate speech as a discrediting term originated in the post-war period to prevent genocide and discrimination against ethnic and religious groups. Today, the label of hate speech is affixed to all political opponents who show national or cultural self-esteem. The demands of radical leftists to ban hate speech stem from allegations that in the absence of action alleged hate speech can be aggressive actions or even movements.

The roots of leftism lie in the Frankfurt School of critical theory philosopher Herbert Marcuse’s text “repressive tolerance” (1965), where he clearly said that “values of tolerance of intolerance Liberation movement of the right-wing and left-wing movements tolerance.” They say that everything fits into the concept of hatred. only from the political right. This is neither civilized nor fair, but it is not surprising that the new (as well as any kind of) Marxism was concerned with changing reality rather than adhering to justice.

What motivates the emergence of hate speech laws in the West? 

Left-wing ideas spread in the West after World War II in both public and academic life. The first spread in the public was through politicians in favor of mass migration from post-colonial states to censorship of national values and culture which could allow the “extremists” to take various positions in the power structures (such as the removal of Enoch Powell from the shadow cabinet after the famous anti-immigration speech blood rivers, 1961). In the post-war period, it was the USSR that introduced a definition of hate speech in international law (international covenant on civil and political rights, 1966). Meanwhile, the Western countries opposed it. Even then, Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of the US President Franklin Roosevelt said that hate speech was “extremely dangerous” and feared that the convention’s hate speech provision would “encourage governments to punish all criticism under the guise of proception from religious or national hostility”. 

Changing the definition of hate speech for political purposes

Social peace is a value to be pursued and indeed not to promote tensions in the society. The lack of communication between important social groups and the resulting censorship of political correctness threatens the peace of our societies. Last year, the news circulated around the world that one of the largest classical music events in Western Europe, BBC Proms that takes place in London would censor the lyrics of several canonical musical pieces. Such exaggerated actions of political correctness under the flag of hate speech seek to censor anything that we might see what a group of society can be offended. 

However, it is the introduction of a newly defined hate speech through political correctness that creates an atmosphere of terror in the society and the real (and even justified) hate: how the people who are censored and oppressed by this leftist status quo should feel like? An atmosphere of terror and fear is not some kind of dystopia: a national survey in the U.S. showed that self-censorship in the United States is on the rise. In 2020 the national survey in the U.S. showed that nearly two-thirds (62%) of Americans said the political climate in the U.S. prevents them from speaking openly about their political views because someone may accept it as an insult or they may be punished for alleged hate speech. Compared to 2017 the same national survey we see that in three years the number of people afraid to declare their political beliefs has only increased. 

Meanwhile, hatred and intolerance to the conservatives are clearly demonstrated on social media. The numbers speak for themselves. In 2020 a national survey in the U.S. showed that as many as 90% of Republicans believe that social networks censor their political views. Meanwhile analysis of Google search by Paul Bolyard (editor of the PJ media website). The analysis showed that 96% of information about the previous U.S. President Donald Trump in the Google search preferred “left-wing anti-Trump media” to the results. After accusing Donald Trump of hate speech and inciting riots, his social network accounts both on Facebook and Twitter were deleted. Given the connections of these giants with the Democratic Party, we can conclude that the expansion of the definition of hate speech is a tool to silence opponents. 

Hate speech as such can exist and spread extremism. However, the emergence of hate speech laws which are based on the statements of H. Marcuse and other philosophers of critical theory clearly does not create an open and honest dialogue between all groups of the society. Instead, it chooses the easiest way – to censor everything that (at least to some extent) opposes the ideology of those in power. Indeed, looking at the situation in the U.S. and Europe today we see that hate speech is most clearly emanating from radical leftist movements. 

The most obvious examples are the ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter movements across the United States and Europe. Both movements used the cynical exploitation of George Floyd’s death to riot and with their slogans clearly aroused the interest of the left media (reduction of police funding, racism between police authorities, racial equality, etc.). This shows that hate speech is not strictly defined and any self-expression interpreted ideologically can become hate speech. Such and often too broad an understating of hate speech risks freedom of speech, irony, and honest dialogue as in certain circumstances everything can be interpreted as a hate speech. This is happening in all Western world When the entire language of a conservative section of society is considered hate speech this is clear that censorship is emerging.