Hate speech is an abuse of the freedom of expression

Virtually every type of base and dehumanising hate speech is being indulged in. It ranges from calling red shirts “water buffaloes” – which in the Thai context means someone who is ‘stupid and docile’ – to that of calling the Democrat Party and its supporters “cockroaches” because they allegedly seek to benefit from the dirty side of politics such as military coups and extra-constitutional interventions.

Social networking sites are, in a way, almost a “perfect” medium to amplify hate speech and exacerbate the political situation, which is already filled with enough distrust and negativity. It amplifies negative messages without being filtered by any gatekeeper as would normally be in the case of mainstream mass media. It’s almost a perfect tool to verbally insult those who think differently about politics as it can reach people whom the message disseminator would otherwise never meet. 

The risk is, hate speech on the Internet may eventually lead to “do-harm speech” or even physical violence while making it impossible to develop empathy for those who think differently. It’s already not uncommon, on both sides, to pass on telephone numbers of people whom they want to “witch hunt”.

While outright do-harm speech can be face legal prosecution, hate speech sits in the grey area of free speech. Calling for the promulgation of a law to ban hate speech would essentially give the authorities more power to engage in more censorship, and this should not be a path taken by a society that has yet to appreciate the true value of freedom of expression. What Thailand needs is to become more aware of the negative repercussions of hate speech and learn to become as immune to it as possible.

When people are not easily angered or misled by hate speech, society will become mature and be able to withstand the negative use and repercussion of freedom of expression.

This writer is well aware that even without hate speech, political hatred will still be there. But at least voluntary cessation of hate speech may reduce the already very high level of mutual animosity from exacerbating at a more rapid as well as rabid rate.

Society should dwell deeply on why some people are so fond of using hate speech. Is it because it’s so convenient to employ it on social network sites, especially when your real identity is not used on Twitter or Facebook? Is it because it’s much easier than engaging in rational debate? Or is it due to the perceived instant gratification in doing emotional damage to the other?

Whatever the reason/s may be, society must not be tempted to pass on the responsibility to the authorities for censoring or banning hate speech. Let us confront hate speech as the negative side of free speech and cultivate immunity to it.

Passing on the responsibility to the authorities to ensure that hate speech be banished will not be effective and is tantamount to not addressing the root cause of the problem. We should not depend on others and as much as possible should try to depend on ourselves, otherwise we would end up having a nanny state making more decisions on our behalf and civil society would weaken as it abdicated more and more of its responsibilities.

What concerned citizens should do is to voluntarily abstain from using hate speech, denounce hate speech and discourage others from using it, for the line between hate speech and “do-harm” speech is slippery.

For the sake of what hope may be left in this society, try rational and empathetic speech instead.