Words Behind Closed Doors: The Harm of Private Hate Speech

闭门言论：私人仇恨言论的危害

• 批准号: 2426723
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Cambridge
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2426723
• 关键词: Words; Behind; Closed; Doors; Harm

Recently, scholars have offered two challenges to the position that free speech is of suchhigh value that it should not be restricted. Waldron (2012) argues that hate speechthreatens accepted principles of justice, while Langton (2009) contends that pornographicspeech constitutes harm. If we care about equality and want to avoid harm, their argumentsimply, these speech acts ought to be restricted. However, the authors do not clarifywhether their arguments cut across the liberal distinction of public and private speech. Theaim of my PhD project is to show that private hate speech fulfils the conditions to threatenequality and constitute harm to at least the same extent as its public counterpart.Consequently, if we take seriously the justification for restrictions of speech that follow,we have to reconsider the political and legal protection of private hate speech.Private hate speech ranges from racist dinner conversations to hateful Facebookgroup chats. Waldron himself offers an argument in favour of restricting public hatespeech yet fails to appreciate its radical conclusions for private life (Langton 2016). Hesuggests that hate speech threatens citizens' knowledge of living in a society whereeveryone subscribes to the principles of justice. But private hate speech can have this effecteven more intensely: a single message can make someone doubt whether others think ofthem as equal. This lack of knowledge is amplified by an actual lack of egalitarian thinkingin society. Even if the victim does not read the messages, hateful private groups chats canreassure their participants that their fantasies of an unequal society are legitimate. Privatehate speech threatens equality in equally significant ways as public hate speech.Feminist theorists (McGowan 2009, Langton 2009) further suggest that somespeech acts constitute harm: speech itself ranks people as inferior. Applying this argumentto private speech may seem less straightforward: the speaker needs a certain authority torank, which private speech can lack. Here, the context of speaking in private becomesimportant. The seclusion of private speech from intervention by others can create the sameauthority-relations between those who utter hate speech and their victims, renderingprivate hate speech directly harmful.Does this radical extension of existing arguments mean that we still ought toprotect private hate speech? The special status of the private realm is often defended onthe grounds that it allows for autonomous development of ideas without the threat ofgovernmental intervention. Okin (1989) and Chambers (2008) have, however, shown that'private' aspects such as culture or family power structures influence the autonomy citizensdisplay in the public realm. We have to ask: whose autonomy counts - that of the hatefulspeaker or that of the victim? In a world where public hate speech is restricted, but privatehate speech rages on, would minority members really be autonomous enough to act ascitizens of equal standing? These considerations, I suggest, provide strong reasons toextend legal restrictions onto private hate speech.

最近，学者们对言论自由具有如此高价值以至于不应受到限制的立场提出了两项​​挑战。 Waldron（2012）认为仇恨言论威胁公认的正义原则，而 Langton（2009）则认为色情言论构成伤害。他们的论点是，如果我们关心平等并希望避免伤害，这些言论行为就应该受到限制。然而，作者并没有澄清他们的论点是否跨越了公共言论和私人言论的自由主义区别。我的博士项目的目的是证明私人仇恨言论符合威胁平等的条件，并构成至少与公共仇恨言论相同程度的伤害。因此，如果我们认真对待随后限制言论的理由，我们就必须重新考虑对私人仇恨言论的政治和法律保护。私人仇恨言论的范围从种族主义晚餐对话到仇恨的Facebook群组聊天。沃尔德伦本人提出了一个支持限制公众仇恨言论的论点，但未能理解其对私人生活的激进结论（Langton 2016）。他认为，仇恨言论威胁到公民对生活在一个人人都遵守正义原则的社会的了解。但私人仇恨言论可以产生更强烈的影响：一条信息就可以让某人怀疑其他人是否认为他们是平等的。社会上实际上缺乏平等主义思想，加剧了这种知识的缺乏。即使受害者没有阅读这些消息，充满仇恨的私人群组聊天也可以让参与者相信，他们对不平等社会的幻想是合法的。私人仇恨言论与公开仇恨言论同样严重地威胁着平等。女权主义理论家（McGowan 2009，Langton 2009）进一步认为，某些言论行为构成伤害：言论本身将人们列为低等人。将这一论点应用于私人演讲似乎不太简单：演讲者需要一定的权威来进行排名，而私人演讲可能缺乏这种权威。在这里，私下讲话的背景变得很重要。将私人言论排除在他人干预之外，可以在发表仇恨言论的人与其受害者之间建立同样的权威关系，从而使私人仇恨言论直接有害。现有论点的这种激进扩展是否意味着我们仍然应该保护私人仇恨言论？私人领域的特殊地位常常受到捍卫，理由是它允许思想的自主发展而不受政府干预的威胁。然而，奥金（Okin，1989）和钱伯斯（Chambers，2008）表明，文化或家庭权力结构等“私人”方面会影响公民在公共领域表现出的自主权。我们必须问：谁的自主权重要——仇恨言论者的自主权还是受害者的自主权？在一个公开仇恨言论受到限制，但私人仇恨言论猖獗的世界里，少数族裔成员真的有足够的自主权来充当平等地位的公民吗？我认为，这些考虑因素为将法律限制扩大到私人仇恨言论提供了强有力的理由。