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.
Comments
Post a Comment