You'll note that it's not the speaker's intention that matters.
The bold text is from the article.
quote:
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listeners inability to offer an intelligent response.Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: 1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and 2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.
Instances of the former are numerous in the society-at-large. For example, when a member of the KKK says I may not be much, but at least Im not a grandma there is really no way to respond intelligently. Nor is there much hope that any response will be understood and appreciated by someone ignorant enough to make such a remark. So the speech can be properly characterized as hate speech.
Instances of the latter are numerous in academia. For example, three years ago this week, I wrote a piece explaining how speech codes produce a form of reverse Darwinism. I argued that only those who are emotionally unfit are likely to become uncomfortable simply by hearing a contrary point of view. I argued further that they are indeed quite emotionally unfit if they actually remain upset long enough to file a complaint aimed at enforcing a speech code.
Of course, after I wrote my piece a feminist started crying and went to the feminist (now former) chair who, in turn, gave me a lecture about civility. In other words, the feminists werent smart enough to address the substance of my remarks. Shocking, isnt it?
Hence, I accurately predicted that the codes seek to weed out the speech of the emotionally stable majority - those who do not cry at work - through the vehicle of complaints filed by the emotionally unstable - those who cry at work but never file complaints directed towards the suppression of their own views.
The similarity between the two principal forms of hate speech is obvious:
They both induce anger in the listener, regardless of whether the speaker expressed his view with any feeling of hatred or animosity.
And this leads to an understanding (see bold sentence below) of the apparent hypocrisy of gays and feminists who a) cry hate speech (while actually crying in some cases) against conservatives who do not wish to kill gays and feminists, and b) tolerate hate speech by Islamic fascists who really do wish to kill gays and feminists.
Islamic advocacy of violence is not classified as hate speech because it induces fear, not anger.
As for me, I'm not comfortable with this definition. It seems to toe the line on speech that people find offensive. I think feeling offended is healthy and leads to either internal growth or to changes in the system outside of rules that are geared to victimizing the offended person.
Now that I've written that, maybe hate speech is that which is geared towards a group of people and not an individual? And does this (hate speech) relate to hate crime?
