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而不应受到限制的观点提出了两个挑战。Waldron(2012)认为仇恨言论威胁到公认的正义原则，而朗顿(2009)则认为色情言论构成伤害。如果我们关心平等，想要避免伤害，他们的争论简单地说，这些言语行为应该受到限制。然而，两位作者没有澄清他们的论点是否跨越了公开演讲和私人演讲的自由区分。我博士项目的目的是证明，私人仇恨言论满足威胁平等的条件，造成的危害至少与公共仇恨言论的危害程度相同。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保护。私人仇恨言论的范围从种族主义晚餐对话到令人憎恨的Facebook群聊。沃尔德龙本人提出了支持限制公众仇恨言论的论点，但未能欣赏其关于私人生活的激进结论(朗顿2016)。他认为，仇恨言论威胁到公民对生活在一个人人都信奉正义原则的社会的认识。但私人仇恨言论可能会产生更强烈的影响：一条信息可能会让人怀疑其他人是否认为他们是平等的。这种知识的缺乏被社会中缺乏平等思想的实际情况所放大。即使受害者没有阅读这些信息，可恨的私人团体聊天也可以让参与者放心，他们对不平等社会的幻想是合法的。女性主义理论家(McGowan 2009，Langton 2009)进一步指出，某些言语行为构成了伤害：言论本身将人们归类为低级。将这一论点应用于私人演讲似乎不那么直截了当：演讲者需要一定的权威，这是私人演讲可能缺乏的。在这里，私下交谈的背景变得非常重要。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和受害者之间创造同样的权威关系，使私人仇恨言论直接受到伤害。这种对现有论点的激进延伸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得到辩护，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，奥金(1989)和钱伯斯(2008)已经表明，文化或家庭权力结构等“私人”方面会影响公民在公共领域中的自治表现。我们不得不问：谁的自主性重要--怀恨在心的演讲者的自主性还是受害者的自主性？在一个公开仇恨言论受到限制，但私人仇恨言论肆虐的世界里，少数族裔成员真的有足够的自主权来作为地位平等的公民吗？我认为，这些考虑为扩大对私人仇恨言论的法律限制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.