Words Behind Closed Doors: The Harm of Private Hate Speech

最近，学者们对言论自由具有如此高的价值以至于不应该受到限制的立场提出了两个挑战。沃尔德龙（2012）认为仇恨言论威胁到公认的正义原则，而兰顿（2009）认为讽刺性言论构成伤害。如果我们关心平等，想避免伤害，他们的论点简单地说，这些言语行为应该受到限制。然而，作者没有澄清他们的论点是否跨越了公开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不合法性的条件，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，我们必须重新考虑对私人仇恨言论的政治和法律的保护。私人仇恨言论的范围从种族主义晚餐对话到仇恨的Facebook群聊天。沃尔德龙本人提出了一个支持限制公开仇恨言论的论点，但未能理解其对私人生活的激进结论（兰顿，2016）。他认为，仇恨言论威胁到公民对生活在一个人人都赞同正义原则的社会中的认识。但私下的仇恨言论会产生更强烈的影响：一条信息就能让人怀疑别人是否平等对待他们。这种知识的缺乏被社会中实际缺乏平等主义思想所放大。即使受害者没有阅读这些信息，仇恨的私人聊天群也可以让参与者放心，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，兰顿2009）进一步指出，一些言论行为构成了伤害：言论本身将人们列为劣等人。将这一论点应用于私人演讲似乎不那么简单：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，私下谈话的语境变得很重要。私人言论不受他人干预可以在发表仇恨言论的人和他们的受害者之间建立同样的权威关系，使私人仇恨言论直接有害。这种对现有论点的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经常被辩护，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，Okin（1989）和Chambers（2008）已经表明，“私人”方面，如文化或家庭权力结构，会影响公民在公共领域中的自主权。我们不得不问：谁的自主性重要--是仇恨者的自主性还是受害者的自主性？在一个公开的仇恨言论受到限制，但私人仇恨言论肆虐的世界里，少数民族成员真的有足够的自主权来作为平等地位的公民吗？我认为，这些考虑为将法律的限制扩展到私人仇恨言论提供了强有力的理由。

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.