In my early days as an academic in England, I had the opportunity to lecture at two universities. Both had policies and a student charter that provided the framework for dignity and respect. Other central themes of these charters were valuing diversity and recognizing different perspectives, ideas, and cultures. Lecturers were encouraged to challenge inequality in a respectful, accurate, and timely way. With the above context in mind, it should be noted that there were laws in place to mitigate communication that could lead to discrimination towards a particular group. In England, there are hate speech laws that make an expression of hatred towards someone based on their color, race, disability, nationality, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation a crime.
My arrival in the United States would provide me with another perspective regarding freedom of speech. One of the ten amendments to the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, grants the right to free speech for anyone residing in the United States. However, the concerning part of the interpretation of this right is the mutation of expressions that can be normalized as hate speech. For example, a university professor or someone in society could echo statements designed to dehumanize a specific group within the community or incite others in the community to carry out an act of violence.
Within this context, freedom of speech could run counter with the United States Declaration of Independence, which states, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If we accept that all people in the US have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, then how can we use free speech to marginalize groups by using discriminatory language, text, and images?
My academic career has taken me to four different countries and has allowed me to understand that my utterances have consequences. Furthermore, I view my role as part of my social responsibility to ensure I play a part in building an inclusive society. Unfortunately, however, not everyone shares my perspective. For example, there are known cases where comments on YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify have been deleted because of hate speech content. In many instances, these hateful words can have a detrimental impact on those targeted. Let’s not forget the Americans who died because someone decided to commit acts of violence outlined in hate speech. For example, the gunman who killed 11 worshippers and injured six in Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue was a member of a white nationalist group on social media, who continuously listened and contributed to the ‘sea’ of hate on that platform. He entered the building shouting out various anti-Semitic words.
Many political discourses have divided social groups for political gains. This is evident across Europe and the United States. The outcomes of these conversations have led to the emergence of a divisive state of affairs. For example, when hate speech is identified, those in positions of power and benefactors of this negative talk suggest that any objection will be an attack on freedom of speech. For instance, many universities in the US decided that white supremacist groups should be banned from state-funded universities. In response, Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring all US colleges and universities to support free speech. The signing of the executive order was also aligned with federal funding.
In summary, freedom of speech can’t run counter to the concept of equality and social justice. We all have a social responsibility to care for each other. The reality is that freedom of speech has consequences that have both positive and detrimental outcomes. Therefore, consider free speech in the context of building a responsible society.
Comments