HATE SPEECH AND MEDIA, BETTER NOT TO CROSS A THIN LINE

Mukesh Devrari

It is difficult to draw an exact line between free and hate speech. The Absence of hate speech is also marked by political correctness. It is a difficult ethical problem to solve, but this question needs an urgent answer. Hate speech can be divided into three categories in terms of its impact and scope. First is regional hate speech, second is national hate speech and third is international hate speech.

The most dangerous aspect of hate speech is its ability to entice fellow citizens to indulge in violence against the targeted group. It also puts pressure on elected governments to take adverse actions against a particular group or consider their genuine aspirations as an abuse of democratic structure available to all citizens.

It makes perfect sense to view the instances of hate speech internationally as a threat to global peace. US President Donald Trump called Syrian President Basher-al-Asad an animal in one of its tweet. It is important to understand that there are many dictators in various states. Most of the dictators are nurtured by Western powers. That is why they are projected positively in the US and those who refuse to compromise with their national interests and try to act independently were demonized by the western media. The US still supports more brutal dictators all over the world. 

Western leaders have in the past demonized other states. Bush described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil. The US destroyed Iraq. Iran and North Korea survived due to excessive pressure and cost of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The purpose of hate speech is to prepare the ground for violence and other actions. 

At a national level, majority groups make an attack on minorities as they see their presence and their culture as a threat to their hegemony and cultural dominance. The wielded attack on minorities by ultra-nationalists most of the times go unnoticed. There are many leaders who make frequent remarks to portray minorities in the negative light. Aristotle famously quoted as saying a man is a social animal. He had spoken only half-truth. Man is an animal, it cannot be anything else. It will be an exaggeration of moderation to expect human beings to behave otherwise.

This animalistic human behaviour is visible all around us. Ethics justice, fairness, reasonableness have nothing to do with our collective life. When Hindus collectively abuse and demonize Muslims due to many reasons, they show their inherent biological character. When Muslims target Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, massacre their town people in the name of blasphemy and god, they show their true character. When Jews were murdered by Christians, it is nothing but a manifestation of our true natural self. 

Love, affection, justice, sympathy, empathy does not come to us naturally. These are inculcated characters enshrined in us due to the efforts of a few great souls among us. Hate speech is exactly the same. It is a manifestation of our narrow worldview and selfishness. The way human beings treat people below them in their daily life, they do the same thing as a collective unit to their weaker counterparts.

No one belongs to any group. It is purely a myth. The neo-liberal order is also responsible for this. It is only a misconception. The sense of loss that human beings feel due to their perceived imaginary loss is misplaced. The absolute rationalistic perspective can better underline the fault, futility and senselessness of the notion of loss human beings feel.

Ideally, in this cruel world, human beings must not enter into ideological collisions. They should contribute to their perspective, not beyond that. Those who seek the participation of fellow beings to attain their objectives, but do nothing, not even recognize the right of fellow citizens to have positive enforceable economic and social rights are criminals and hypocrites.

Regarding hate speech, its functions remain the same only target changes. So nationally it is religious minorities, regionally it is racial and linguistic minorities and internationally it is third world Muslim, Asian and African nations, which are not ready to comply with western dictates.

Truth versus Hate Speech

Truth if not relevant, cannot justify hate speech. Truth does not necessarily lead society in a better direction. It is also not value neutral. It was not an inherent trait. At times avoiding too much of truth can be helpful in the creation of humane society. Truth can have far-reaching impact in spreading falsehood, prejudices and stereotypes.

End.