We still have problems, even with these definitions. Consider
just a few points:
- The first definition you mention defines hate speech in terms
of what is offensive to various groups. Do we really want our
definition to turn on something as subjective and variable as
offense? We all know that what seems offensive to one person may
seem humorous to someone else.
- The second definition includes not only race, ethnicity, and
religion but sexual orientation or preference. I think we would
all agree that sexual orientation is in the definition because
of the gay movement of the 1970s and 80s. My point is not pro-
or anti-gay. Rather, I want to point out that what gets included
depends on the politics of the times. How do we know what might
be added as time goes on?
- The last two definitions include only speech directed at historically
oppressed groups. Does that mean that black students could say
whatever they wanted to whites without being guilty of hate speech?
And besides, it isn't at all obvious which groups are "historically
oppressed." Was the white working class oppressed? What about
the Irish? The Irish were discriminated against in the 19th century
but that seems to have changed. Do they still count as historically
oppressed? Or is there some kind of statute of limitations on
oppression? Who decides?
I think we're standing on quicksand here. All the definitions
have problems. Some are vague, some are too variable or subjective, some depend
on a particular political stance that regards some people as oppressed
and others as oppressors. The concept is full of problems.
Speaking)
