- The Debate Daily
- Posts
- Should People Be Punished For Online Hate Speech?
Should People Be Punished For Online Hate Speech?
US Voter Priorities 🇺🇸| Water Bill Hikes in England 💧| Lifetime Cigarette Ban for UK Youth 🚭
The Debate Daily
November 06, 2024
Welcome to today’s issue of The Debate Daily!
In today’s email: The far right riots that took place this summer and the role that social media played in them has reignited the debate about how to punish those who spread hate speech online. Arguably, the damage done by hate speech on social media and its ability to influence so many people cannot go unpunished since it leaves so many people vulnerable. However, there are also significant difficulties regulating hate speech on social media, not least because defining hate speech is tricky and could pave the way for further censorship. Furthermore, the sheer size of social media platforms means some would inevitably be punished while others would get away with it. Is punishing the perpetrators the best way to deal with the problem?
By Grace Leather
The Headlines
US Voter Priorities: Early exit polls reveal democracy and the economy as top issues for voters in the recent U.S. elections, with over a third prioritizing democracy.
Water Bill Hikes in England: Ofwat approves a provisional 21% increase in water bills (about £19 per year) from 2025 to 2030 to fund sewage and infrastructure projects. Consumer groups warn millions may struggle with these higher costs.
Lifetime Cigarette Ban for UK Youth: Proposed legislation aims to prevent anyone born in or after 2009 from ever buying cigarettes, part of a larger plan for a "smokefree generation." The bill also seeks stricter controls on youth vaping and underage sales.
Debate #038
Should People Be Punished For Online Hate Speech?
As concerns over online hate speech grow in the wake of the Southport riots, rising violence against women and high suicide rates, it is clear that people should be punished for online hate speech. In order to prevent escalation of hate and protect vulnerable individuals and groups, further regulation on online hate speech must be introduced.
Online Actions Have Real Life Consequences - Every year, lives are torn apart because of online hate speech, making it is essential that it is punishable. A key example of this is the growing rates of suicide of those receiving hate online, with cyberbullying directly linked with suicidal thoughts and attempts, an issue that particularly impacts young people. Those in the public eye can provide examples of the problem. While many other factors contributed to the mental health struggles and eventual suicides of former ‘Love Island’ host Caroline Flack as well as former contestants Sophie Gradon and Mike Thalassitis, the online abuse that many of these people receive only exacerbate the problem. People must be held accountable for the horrific consequences online hate speech can cause.
Online hate speech can be a catalyst for further hate towards individuals and groups so punishing those who produce it could be the first step in reducing further violence
Prevents Escalation of Hate - Online hate speech can be a catalyst for further hate towards individuals and groups so punishing those who produce it could be the first step in reducing further violence. The July 2024 Southport riots show this escalation clearly. A LinkedIn post claiming the attacker of children at a dance class was a ‘migrant’ was reposted to Twitter gaining over 500,000 views. This false narrative led to riots where ethnic minorities were targeted and a mosque was attacked. Ideally, punishing individuals involved will deescalate and deter future violence.
Protecting Individuals and Groups - Punishing online hate speech will deter people from involving themselves in online abuse in the future, protecting vulnerable individuals and groups. Many groups are vulnerable to hate speech, including women. 1 in 10 women in the EU have experienced cyber harassment since the age of 15 and in the Arab states, 60% of female internet users have been exposed to online violence in the last year. This will only continue if there is no intervention.
However…
The notion of punishing people for online hate speech could create further issues such as concerns over government censorship, freedom of speech and putting those vulnerable to online hate in further danger. Therefore, punishing people for online hate speech is not the most effective approach for handling the problem.
Further Dangers - The regulation of online hate speech coincides with the reduction of free speech. This idea of groups losing their right to speak out could further far-right anger that the government is attempting to mitigate. Furthermore, it could place vulnerable communities in further danger due to the backlash that punishment of online hate speech could receive. It must be considered carefully if this is the safest option for the future of those most vulnerable to hate speech.
It must be considered carefully if this is the safest option for the future of those most vulnerable to hate speech
Difficult to Regulate - Although punishing online hate speech seems obvious, in practice, it is very difficult to regulate. Huge apps like Facebook and Instagram have billions of users so the ability to track what every one of them is saying would be impossible. This leads to a sense of injustice as some are punished for their online hate crimes whilst others are not. The Southport riots are a prime example, as certain individuals involved in social media posts were arrested, such as a 55 year old from Chester, whilst many faced no consequences.
Government Censorship - Hate speech does not have a universally accepted definition in law, meaning it is extremely difficult to pinpoint what hate speech actually is and where a line will be drawn. This leads to concerns over government censorship. If legislation is created regarding hate speech, not only is this censoring people but it also sets a precedent for governments to censor speech even further in the future.
Summary
Social media has created a new dimension in which hate speech can operate, making it easier for people to both spread hate speech and be exposed to hate speech. A perfect example of this was the spreading of false rumours that the Southport attacker was a migrant, fuelling the far right riots this summer. Therefore, many are calling for tougher punishments for those who spread hate online because of the way online hate speech can escalate and lead to real life violence. Supposedly, this would protect those vulnerable to hate speech and prevent people from being exposed to dangerous influences online that may shape their attitudes. Groups who are often targeted like women would also benefit from a crackdown. However, there are a number of issues with punishing those who spread online hate. It may further anger communities who are likely to post hateful views, making violence potentially more likely. Additionally, the size of social media means not everyone will be punished, something that is both unjust and inefficient and any censorship may pave the way for future censorship that genuinely restricts freedom of speech. Ultimately, while most will agree that hate speech is bad and needs to be tackled, the more difficult question is whether punishing the perpetrators themselves is the most effective way of doing so.
What do you think?
Would it be better to punish social media companies for failing to deal with hate speech rather than social media users?
Where should the line be draw between allowing free speech and censoring hate speech?
How should we deal with mental health issues that are often exacerbated by social media but not necessarily caused by hate speech?
To Vote, Comment, or Leave Feedback, Visit Our Instagram
This newsletter was brought to you by writers: Grace Leather
Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.
Feedback
If you have have any questions or feedback, feel free to reach out to us directly on any of our social media, or at [email protected]
Reply