Censorship not the answer to 'hate speech', scholar argues
Short of direct incitement to violence, political hate speech - which has proliferated in Thailand over the past half decade or more, especially on social-networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter - must be tolerated rather than censored, said Charnch
Charnchai presented a paper on the topic of hate speech last month after contemplating the issue for the past two years. He warned that if people succumb to the urge to have the state censor hate speech, it will eventually lead to the development of a “nanny state” that will decide things on behalf of the public and gradually expand curbs on freedom of expression.
“Freedom of speech exists to challenge dogmatic thinking,” said Charnchai, adding that unchallenged beliefs often lead to violence.
“Hate speech threatens human liberty, but as John Stuart Mill stated, there exists a dilemma between containing hate speech while protecting free speech. Speech that does harm must definitely be censored,” he said, without adding which organ would be authorised to carry out that task.
Charnchai instead proposed four ways of dealing with hate speech. They include introducing counter-speech that renders hate speech ineffectual, and seeking to transform producers of hate speech by engaging them in conversation or dialogue.
“If we encounter such counter-speech often, we won’t believe in things [that are being said] so easily.”
The dissemination of constructive speech can also counter the destructiveness of hate speech, Charnchai noted.
RELATED