We don't have a cohesive definition of "hate speech" or laws against it as of yet. While I consider it a very slippery slope, I would be interested in seeing how this has worked in the UK, how the laws are worded and such.
Generally at length though with some degree of imprecision:
In 1998, when the UK incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act it included the guarantee of
freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10. Now, UK law imposes several limitations on freedom of speech, many of which are not found in other jurisdictions; e.g. recognition of the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred. In addition UK laws on defamation are probably among the strictest in the Western world. They require a high burden of proof on the defendant.
Not quite 'Hate Speech' but UK legislation in terms of defamation did, possibly experience a liberalising effect last year in Jameel v Wall Street Journal (October 2006). The House of Lords (the highest UK court) ruling revived the so-called Reynolds defence whereby journalism which is undertaken
in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include:
- a right of reply for potential claimants,
- the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time.
This ruling removed the awkward and hitherto binding conditions of being able to describe a publisher as being duty bound to publish such material and the public as having a clear interest in receiving it. The original Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and upheld 3-2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and unequivocal.
Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, in describing how the judge in the first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Lord Justice Hoffman made several references to Eady J, none of them favourable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic comparing his language to “the jargon of the old Soviet Union.” Given how the Lords work, that's pretty incendiary stuff!!
Now the bad news; freedom of speech is again under threat, partly in the form of the the measures contained in the European Union's Racism and Xenophobia Directive. This could be enshrined in UK law by 2010 and has far reaching freedom of expression implications, including on the Internet. Then with the esoteric "Glorification of Terrorism" legislation, it gets worse.
It's ironic, that while we abhor racist and other divisive speech and wish it (and its causes) would go away in the US it's constutionally protected, whereas in UK it is punishable by up to three years in prison. What irritates the hell out of me is that in some measure I support both positions though if I had to
choose I would opt for the former without doubt.
Racism, Xenophobia and Incitement Online :European Law and Policy
European industrial relations dictionary - Racism and xenophobia
See also the
Treaty of Amsterdam for an EU definition of discrimination.
As for what defines Hate Speech it's usually asked in the context of the incitement to religious hatred, the Danish Cartoons being a good example. In the UK legislation has existed on this topic for decades, expecially the Public Order Act of 1986. This was amended by the
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which defines religious hatred as:
"hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.”
This act was resisted by both the Judiciary, and religious groups and others on the grounds it would impinge on freedom of speech and that it was both unecessary and ineffective.
BBC NEWS | UK | Head to head: Religious hatred and
BBC NEWS | Politics | New effort to ban religious hate
While I'm not sure if you can divine a cohesive definition from the above I agree about the 'slippery slope'.