Hate Speech V. Free Expression: Should Democracies Redefine The Threshold?
Anushka Sharma, Maharashtra National Law University, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Sanika Limbulkar, Maharashtra National Law University, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Introduction: Free Speech in the Contemporary Era
In the contemporary era, a single online statement has the potential to reach millions within seconds. Although, this connectivity has bolstered civic participation, it has also escalated the spread of hate speech. Modern democracies therefore face a critical dilemma: should they redefine the threshold between free speech and hate speech?
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” — Frederick Douglass.
Freedom of speech and opinion are essential components of democratic societies and human rights. These liberties uphold other essential rights, like the freedom of religion, the right to peaceful assembly, and the right to take part in public affairs. Freedom of speech is the ability to voice one's thoughts and opinions without worrying about social repression, government censorship, or retaliation, as long as such thoughts and opinions do not cause harm to others or inspire violence. Digital media, including social media, have bolstered the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. It fosters open dialogue and understanding across diverse perspectives. People choose their leaders in democratic form of government and when such leader censor certain opinions or limit public discussions it weakens the public trust in the government. Therefore, when free speech is protected, society thrives, however, when not protected individual rights suffer.
By examining constitutional principles, judicial approaches, and the impact of digital communication, this article evaluates whether democracies should reconsider the threshold distinguishing protected speech from punishable hate expression.
