Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Political Science
Political Theory

Hate Speech and Hate Expression

Profile image of Neville D BuchNeville D Buch

2026, Dr Neville Buch ABN: 86703686642

Last updated
visibility

…

description

7 pages

Abstract

This essay argues that effectively addressing hate speech and the expression of hatred requires a transition from technocratic solutions, such as bans and censorship, toward a sophisticated understanding of the Dynamic of Cognition (DoC). Drawing on the synthesis of C.G. Jung's archetypes and John Dewey's social psychology, it posits that hatred is often rooted in unreflective "prejudices" and archetypal "shadow" projections that are exploited by agitation propaganda. By utilizing the DoC framework-moving from unreflective prejudice through empathic inclusion to the synthesis of the Five Intentions-society can foster rational-critical communication and self-overcoming. Intellectual solutions must prioritize the development of empathic attunement and historical truth-telling over mere administrative exclusion to achieve lasting human flourishing and substantial fairness.

Related papers

Hate Speech: A Philosophical Insight
Saša Horvat

Religious Freedom and Other Human Rights - Threats and Trends, 2023

Hate speech is a multifaceted and intricate phenomenon that is difficult to define. This paper aims to offer a philosophical perspective on hate speech by examining its two constituent elements: language and hate. In addition to a brief philosophical analysis of language, the paper provides an overview of current thoughts on hatred as a phenomenon, drawing on Aristotle’s four causes. The paper aims to emphasize the complexity of hate speech and underscore the significance of acknowledging the final cause as a guiding principle in contemplation. By doing so, it stresses the need to remain constantly aware of the potential disastrous consequences associated with this phenomenon. Keywords: hate speech, language, hate, Aristotle, genocide, freedom of expression

View PDFchevron_right
Finding the Harm in Hate Speech: An Argument against Censorship
Stephen Newman

Canadian Journal of Political Science

The liberal justification for censorship equates the harm in hate speech with the sort of tangible injury that would justify state intervention under J.S. Mill's harm principle. Recently, Jeremy Waldron has suggested that the real harm perpetuated by hate speech is less tangible, taking it to be a variety of moral pollution which undermines both the public good of inclusiveness and the minority's assurance of personal dignity. This paper scrutinizes Waldron's conception of the harm in hate speech, arguing that it lacks the specificity and gravity Mill's principle requires in order to justify censorship. The paper also questions the categorical distinction between hate speech and speech that is “merely offensive,” arguing that…

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction: The Politics of Hate
Robert Tsai

Journal of Hate Studies

View PDFchevron_right
Literature review for hate speech perpetuation with regards to empowerment theories - Freire's Theory of Empowerment or the Pedagogy of the Oppressed: doi>10.24250/JPE/1/2020/DVR
Dana Rad

Journal Plus Education, 2020

To tackle psychological sources of hate speech, our project Hate's Journey, financed by Erasmus+, 2018-2-ES02-KA205-011733 has designed an online questionnaire composed by some single item research questions, general data collection and tests regarding emotional regulation, internet content awareness and helping attitudes. The hypothesis of this research is that the revenge thinking pattern and ignoring attitude towards the negative effects of hate speech are powerful predictors of future online perpetrator pattern of hate speech. The revenge thinking pattern and ignoring attitude towards the negative effects of hate speech are powerful predictors of future online perpetrator pattern of hate speech. These results suggest that if an individual is enveloped by a thinking pattern built on revenge and if the level of ignorance is high (regarding the negative effects of one's actions), then there is a possibility of the individual to engage in a form of hate speech. In the quest of ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ matching these new results with a suitable theoretical framework, the pedagogy of the oppressed thinking felt more appropriate.

View PDFchevron_right
Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012). I-CONnect (25 February 2013), http://www.iconnectblog.com/2013/02/book-review-jeremy-waldrons-the-harm-in-hate-speech
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
View PDFchevron_right
Poststructuralism, Behaviorism and the Problem of Hate Speech
Carrie Hull

Philosophy & Social Criticism, 2003

In this paper, I propose that influential arguments of Jacques Derridas's and Judith Butler's rely on behaviorism and relativism, a reliance which has implications for, among other things, the issue of hate speech. I begin with a brief discussion of the philosophy of W. V. O. Quine, a thinker seldom discussed in relationship to continental poststructuralism. Quine is interesting because he explicitly defends an ontological relativism combined with linguistic behaviorism, the latter as influenced by B. F. Skinner and John Watson. I then show that Butler's and Derrida's theories demonstrate a similar yet unacknowledged lineage. I devote the final section of the paper to a discussion of hate speech, and the problematization of behaviorism and relativism it entails.

View PDFchevron_right
A Functional Examination of Hate Speech
Mattie Scott

Semiotics, 1997

View PDFchevron_right
About hate speech in the digital age: psychological and IT perspectives
Deborah De Rosa

Báez, A.B.; Martinez-Sala, A.; Domínguez, D. C. (a cura di), Caer en la red con inteligencia (artificial), Marcial Pons, Madrid, 2024

The feeling of hate is certainly not a recent invention, nor is the possibility of expressing it in words. However, the recent progressive digitalisation has given the phenomenon a new face: hate speech, which each of us encounters today especially on social media, has taken on new characteristics and needs to be studied and understood in its specific form in order to be combated. Those who utter hate speech today have the possibility of reaching an incredibly larger audience than in the past, being able to foment conflicts, even direct political opinions and voting choices. The conditions for the possibility of hate speech are both technological and psychological. It spreads on social networks by exploiting the same computing rules on which the latter base their functioning: the algorithms that regulate the display of content, which can be manipulated; the photo and video content of the news, which can be altered; micro-targeting based on the user's history and personal data, which can be hacked. Furthermore, something makes it possible for hate speech to spread from a single user to many, like a contagion, and this happens on a cognitive level. The aim of this contribution is to answer this question by linking the IT aspect to two theoretical perspectives, showing their mutual interconnection: the 'anchoring bias', theorised by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, and the interpretation of media society proposed by Jean Baudrillard, through the concepts of 'hyperreality' and 'simulacrum'. By also highlighting their close connection to the rampant and deleterious practice of creating fake news, we intend to show that these theoretical tools - from the fields of computer science, psychology and philosophy - provide, in their combination, an understanding of several complex facets of the phenomenon of hate speech, thus enabling, above all, the thinking of effective counteracting measures.

View PDFchevron_right
Hate, Politics, Law: Critical Perspectives onCombating Hate (2018). Thomas Brudholm & Birgitte Schepelern Johansen, eds. Oxford University Press
Changing Societies & Personalities

Changing Societies & Personalities , 2019

View PDFchevron_right
Hate speech as collective harm (draft)
Simon Thompson

There is a vigorous ongoing debate about the legitimacy of hate speech. For some, such speech should be protected by the right to freedom of expression. For others, there are good reasons why it should be regulated. My aim in this article is to lend support to the case for hate speech regulation. I shall do so by arguing that such regulation is necessary to prevent – or at least to reduce – the harm that hate speech would otherwise do. However, since the harmful consequences of acts of hate speech rarely immediate and clear, how can regulation of such acts be justified? My argument will be that hate speech contributes to a kind of collective harm which I shall call a ‘climate of hatred’. Exploring the normative consequences of this argument, I begin by rejecting the claim that a concept of ‘shared responsibility’ can be used to understand why individuals have a duty not to incite hatred against others. Instead I defend a notion of ‘collective responsibility’, according to which all hate speakers are responsible as a collective for the harms caused by the climate of hatred which their speech creates and sustains. I then explain how such collective responsibility both explains and justifies individual moral duties to cease and desist from speaking hatefully about others. I end this article by suggesting that the analysis I present here may be applied not just to the particular case of hate speech but to a broad range of collective harms, from cultural oppression to climate change.

View PDFchevron_right

References (13)

  1. Bibliography: Critique of Hatred and Expressions of Hatred
  2. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper.
  3. Cunneen, C., Fraser, D., & Tomsen, S. (Eds.). (1997). Faces of hate: Hate crime in Australia. Hawkins Press.
  4. Dirks, N. B. (2024). City of intellect: The uses and abuses of the university. Cambridge University Press Ellul, J. (1973). Propaganda: The formation of men's attitudes. Vintage Books.
  5. Every, D., & Augoustinos, M. (2007). Constructions of racism in the Australian parliamentary debates on asylum seekers. Discourse Society, 18(4), 411-436.
  6. Giroux, H. A. (1986). Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking the discourse of educational research. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 84-105.
  7. Glover, J. (2000). Humanity: A moral history of the 20th century. Yale University Press.
  8. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: The critique of functionalist reason. Polity Press.
  9. Halperin, E., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2009). The central role of group-based hatred as an emotional antecedent of political intolerance: Evidence from Israel. Political Psychology, 30(1), 93-123.
  10. Harrington, E. R. (2003). The social psychology of hatred. Journal of Hate Studies, 3(1), 49-82.
  11. Noddings, N. (2004). War, critical thinking, and self-understanding. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7), 488-495.
  12. Saleam, J. (1999). The other radicalism: An inquiry into contemporary Australian extreme right ideology. (Ph.D. Thesis). University of Sydney.
  13. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Fontana Press.
About the author
Neville D Buch
The University of Queensland, Australia, Alumnus

Management Institute for Contributory Economy (Research and Community Education via The Philosophy Café) Dr Neville Buch works with Drs Neil Peach and Drs Michael Macklin in the emerging Management Institute for Contributory Economy (MICE), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Dr Neville Buch works with Dr Neil Peach on The Philosophy Café. The Philosophy Café is an informal, non-technical group that encourages philosophical debate and provides a forum for the active exchange of ideas within the loose and broad traditions of philosophy. The achievements are comprehensive education and the principles and philosophy of the Management Institute for Contributory Economy. Dr Buch was a Q ANZAC Fellow at the State Library of Queensland (2015-2016). He has recently published on the influence of Charles Strong in Queensland conservative, radical and liberal progressivism. He is well-published and recognised for his contribution in the histories of both Catholic secondary and state primary education in Queensland, as well as histories in the cultural and religious shaping of Protestant and Catholic organisations.   He is a thematic group Convenor, in Sociology of Education, for The Australian Sociological Association (TASA). Dr Buch was a registered director and the Communities Program Manager for Humanist Australia (HA). Dr Buch is a local historian and Managing Director of the Brisbane Southside History Network and the Mapping Brisbane History Project, assisting voluntary local history societies on the Brisbane to work together to gain a regional history perspective. Since the end of 2011 Dr Buch has been a member of the Professional Historians Association (Queensland) Management Committee and the PHAQ e-bulletin editor. In his role in the Professional Historians Association (Queensland), he produced a 20-point Strategic Plan document. The work involved research, consultation, and time management planning over several months. The achievement in all of this work are large volume of academic and ‘grey’ literature informative to a substantive international audience.   Dr Buch was Senior Administration Officer (Teaching and Learning Quality) in the Faculty of Law at the Queensland University of Technology. He performed duties in eight different roles where the achievements have been the preparing and distributing the agendas, minutes, and post-meeting action items; and production in an assortment of tasks which are major or minor projects involving the communication of faculty teaching and learning matters, including i) working as a part of the faculty teaching & learning team or as a member of the faculty office; and ii) taking on small projects for the Assistant Dean Teaching and Learning, such as preparing a PowerPoint presentation. These are all achievements. Dr Buch worked as a Research Officer for three Vice-Chancellors at the University of Melbourne (Gilbert, Lee Dow, and Davis), producing many research reports on educational issues.  Most of these report involved complex reviews of the academic and government literature.  He worked directly with three Vice-Chancellors at the University of Melbourne (Gilbert, Lee Dow, and Davis) as the Research Officer during the major institutional strategic changes of the “Melbourne Agenda’ and ‘Growing Esteem’. When Dr Buch left the University of Melbourne to return the family back to Brisbane in 2008, the Vice-Chancellor said, “You made a most worthwhile contribution - not just to the specific tasks undertaken, but in helping think through some of the big issues confronting this and every other university. I hope you've seen some of your ideas conveyed in speeches and publications over the past three years.” Dr Buch began his career as a Research Assistant for the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Roy Webb. One of the first projects he successfully completed was an institutional report reviewing various issues in each of the schools, based on a program of interviews with unit heads. In January 1998, as Acting Manager in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor, Griffith University, Dr Buch had proven his ability to make good judgements as well as demonstrating professionalism and personal initiative. Dr Buch is an expert in cognition histories and cognition sociology; on histories and historiography of big belief and doubt, educational theories and practice, within the scope of Queensland intellectual history and policy. He has worked as higher education policy researcher for the Vice-Chancellor, Professors Roy Webb, Glyn Davis, Kwong Lee Dow, and Alan Gilbert, along with work for Chancellors, Mr Ian Renard, and Sir Edward Woodward (1998-2008). As a scholar with over 30 years’ experience writing on Christianity as religion and society, from both Christian and Post-Christian perspectives, he is Queensland’s foremost historian on belief and doubt.

Papers
403
Followers
715
View all papers from Neville D Bucharrow_forward

Related papers

On the possible Role of Empathy in Preventing the Vice of Hate Speech abstract and work in progress 2016-2017 (and on-going 2025) (© Liba (Libuse) Kaucky ResearcherID: P-2484-2016, ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1598-0833)
Liba Kaucky

On the possible Role of Empathy in Preventing the Vice of Hate Speech In this paper, I wish to build on and further my research 1 on the under-explored topics of vice, social harms and justice by presenting and examining them through the vice of hate speech. My approach will be to unpack hate speech in relation to both contemporary and feminist philosophical debates as well as arguments in the history of philosophy. Throughout this paper, I shall apply my research questions across the two main levels of society. On the macro-level of society, I shall explore international politics, such as the impact of political rhetoric on citizens' behaviour and speech, as well as ethical and legal philosophical issues, for instance, testimony of hate crimes involving incidents of violence and hate speech. On the micro-level of society, my focus is on direct social interaction between individuals and what kinds of obligations exist and should obtain in daily life. At both levels of society, I will examine a range of forms of communication through philosophy of language, from the spoken word to the written word, including social media, as well as examining hate speech in all its various forms, such as verbal, written, gestures, artworks, images and hate symbols. The aim of this paper is to explore and analyse the under-researched intersections between hate speech and various forms of harm across the ethical, social, epistemic, psychological, aesthetic and political spectrum. In section one, I shall follow on from the work of Tanessini and Goldberg by focusing on the extent to which hate speech causes epistemic harm and silencing. In light of Brownlee's and Valentini's research, in section two I shall analyse the ways in which moral and social harm is caused by speech, interactions and social isolation and how damaging that harm can be to individuals. Then I would like to relate these papers to Green's paper (Spinoza on Self-Hatred, 2015) to ask when and in what way can hate speech bring about self-hatred in the people or groups on the receiving end of it? Is this form of social and moral harm just as damaging as the directly observable social interactions and isolation that Brownlee and Valentini discuss? Lastly, I shall translate these epistemic, psychological, social and moral harms into the political and aesthetic realm. Given Mill's Harm Principle 2 , Arendt's 'The Origins of Totalitarianism' 3 and 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil' 4 , and present day examples in international politics and hate speech towards various groups in society, what role does hate speech play in causing political harm? What could be put in place to attempt to prevent hate speech and the harms and hate crimes which can arise from it? In what ways have the arts attempted to respond to harm in society and how successfully do they address hate speech? Wollstonecraft 5 argues that the arts encourage positive societal progress by encouraging people to put themselves into other people's shoes. Can her idea be applied to today's artists and entertainers? Furthermore, what is the role of Butler's 6 concept of performativity when applied to hate speech and speech which condemns it? Finally, I shall suggest that empathy has an important and useful role to play in combatting harms caused by hate speech. I shall ask whether the answer could lie in Hume's writings on sympathy, which, as I have argued previously 7 , constitutes the concept of empathy? Are some forms of hate speech caused by, what Baier 8 terms, empathy blockers? Could empathy avert hate speech by addressing concepts explored by Langton 9 , Haslanger 10 and MacKinnon 11 such as solipsism, objectification and dehumanisation of others? In conclusion, I will hope to have shown that harm is more diverse than is often discussed and that the different types of harms are closely connected to each other so should not be examined separately but rather as one phenomenon. Within this, I shall draw on William James' writings on toleration 12 and its application to politics and society 13. I maintain that, by gaining both a broader and deeper understanding of empathy, vice, emotions such as hate, and various forms of speech, we can better analyse and attempt to combat a range of harms inflicted by hate speech and social exclusion in practical ways across the world today.

View PDFchevron_right
Session on: On the (possible) Role of Empathy in Preventing the Vice of Hate Speech work in progress 2016-2017 (and still on-going 2018) (© Liba (Libuse) Kaucky ResearcherID: P-2484-2016, ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1598-0833)
Liba Kaucky
View PDFchevron_right
Hate Speech and Human Society: A Critical Analysis
yusuf musa

2021

This paper critically analyses the concept of ‘hate speech’ and interrogates the possibilities of its impact on human society. The task before the paper is to identify the nuances and underpinning issues that surround the concept and whether it has any socio-political impact. Though the concept of hate speech is regarded as a potential social problem that can cause violence, which poses a threat to mutual co-existence in human society. Nonetheless, in the twenty-first century, the concept has become a topic of discussion globally, as such so many people try to give it a definitional vacuum which is unscientific, it is due to this that this paper uses Raphael’s three models of concept clarification as a theoretical framework to elaborate on the concept and give it a philosophical definitional vacuum. Therefore, using Raphael’s model of analysis, the paper discovers that the concept of hate speech means any form of expression online or offline, spoken or written, which includes images...

View PDFchevron_right
2014 'Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice'
Rae Langton
View PDFchevron_right
On the Exploitation of Hate in Society: A Philosophical Approach
Sven Greitschus

2019

This study will consider the emotion of hate as a socio-collective mechanism that may be triggered at any moment and as such is prone to exploitation. Hate, in this context, becomes institutionalised in the form of terror (terrorism) and counter-terror (war against terrorism) and as such is transformed into a social, cultural, and political precondition for the operation of markets. The intellectual trajectory leading up to this research premise is based on the Idealist epistemological hypothesis that all of knowledge is essentially grounded in experience, and that the experience of modern society leads to ignorance or lack of knowledge as a requirement for the establishment of hate on a socio-collective scale.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Political Theory
  • Political communication
  • Carl G. Jung
  • Bernard Williams
  • Nel Noddings
  • Holy Foolishness
  • Paid and unpaid work
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2026 Academia. All rights reserved