What's the difference between a smart Scot and a unicorn? Nothing, they are both fictional characters. Ha ha ha... That caught your attention, didn't it? Did you like the joke I just told? It's funny, isn't it? Well, I certainly think so. If you are offended by what I just said, do you think I should be punished? Likewise, if you found it funny, do you think punishment is warranted? In both cases, why? Is it because I hurt you? Unfortunately for you, what I just said is protected by my right to free speech – well, at least it should be... Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essayFree speech, by definition, is the principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community to express his opinions and ideas without fear of reprisal, censorship or legal sanction. In almost every country in the world, it is more than just a principle: it is a human right. For example, if I wanted to express my opinion about someone like Donald Trump, I could do so without having to worry about being punished. So why does this “hate speech” exist? The definition of hate speech varies greatly depending on the source you use, however, to summarize it: Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic/national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. Many constitutions recognize this and add an exception to the freedom of expression law already in force. But doesn’t that just negate the basic idea of ​​free speech? This is not a rhetorical question – the answer is yes. The very notion of hate speech is fundamentally flawed. The idea that all but one category of speech can be protected is simply absurd. Freedom of expression is the legal right for an individual or community to express any idea, opinion, argument or point of view they may have. It protects all types of speech that fall into this category. Hate speech, on the other hand, is speech that attacks, threatens or insults a person or group based on their identity. He condemns speeches falling into this category. One of the major problems is that hate speech contradicts the idea of ​​freedom of speech. One encompasses the other and you can't just say 'any speech is okay, expect this type of speech because it offends people'. Do you see the contradiction here? A simple but effective example showing this can be found in what I call the “junk food example”. Let's say I tell you, "You can eat any food you like." But no junk food because it's unhealthy. That doesn't make sense, does it? I just told you that any type of food is okay, but I also told you that you specifically can't eat junk food. This undermines the fundamental idea that all foods are available by suggesting that you can't have this specific category of foods because they are bad. When you think about it for more than 5 seconds, you instantly find the flaws in the reasoning. That being said, what exactly is hate speech? Well, we know the broad definition, but what actually constitutes hate speech? It's not as simple as you might think. Another major problem with hate speech is that it is entirely subjective, meaning that it differs from person to personto the other. What offends one person probably won't offend another, which means that, logically, it can't be categorized. Hate speech can generally be described as “offensive, hateful or unpopular speech”. This is wrong because: offense is based on personal feeling, hatred is an emotion that varies wildly between people, and whether something is unpopular depends entirely on public opinion – no aspect of this is objective. Here is an effective way to demonstrate it to you. Let's say you are an American citizen in the mid-1800s. Slavery is widespread but you strongly believe in the emancipation of slaves and decide to express your opinion. To many, this would be considered hate speech and an insult to the white population. Your opinion, at the time, would have been considered offensive, hateful and unpopular to and within this group. Today, of course, we condemn the transatlantic slave trade, and any opinion that supports it is deemed unpopular by society and immediately attacked because it is offensive and hateful toward black people. Offending is not a crime. Offending cannot be a crime because whether something is offensive is subjective. Just because you don't approve of something someone says doesn't mean they should be punished based on that alone. If someone tells a joke and you find it funny, does that mean it can be objectively classified as funny or even a joke? No. The answer is no. In the same way that comedy can't really be classified, hate speech can't either. This quote from Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, says it best: “Defending everyone's right to free speech must include defending the rights of those who say things we find shocking or offensive. The right to free speech must include the right to offend, otherwise freedom is meaningless. » Now that I have shown you how structurally broken the hate speech argument is, I will give a concrete example of how the subjective nature of hate speech led to the arrest and conviction of 'a man for a joke he had made. If you've been keeping up with online media lately, you've probably heard of "The Nazi Pug Man." Markus Meechan, better known as "Count Dankula", is a Scottish YouTuber who recently received widespread media coverage thanks to a Holocaust joke he made. In April 2016, he uploaded a video that showed him teaching his girlfriend's pug dog to raise its paw in a Nazi salute when he says "Sieg Heil" and react to the phrase. “Gas the Jews,” among other things. According to Meechan, his girlfriend kept saying how cute his pug (named Buddha) was and claims the motive behind the video was to play a prank on him by turning Buddha into the least cute thing he could. think: a Nazi. He was subsequently arrested and, in March 2018, found guilty of breaching the Communications Act 2003 before being fined £800. After this story made news online, many comedians and celebrities such as Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry defended Dankula's actions. Hearing this story, you probably think the video is in poor taste, as did many others at the time who took offense and reported the video to the police. If so, you probably also think his punishment is justified. But remember what I told you before about this sort of thing; you cannot justify punishment on the basis of.”