What's the difference between a smart Scottish man and a unicorn? Nothing, they are both fictional characters. Ha ha ha...It caught your attention, didn't it? Did you like the joke I just told? Funny, isn't it? Well, I definitely think so. If you were offended by what I just said, do you think I should be punished? Likewise, if you found it funny, do you think punishment is warranted? In both cases, why? Is it because I hurt your feelings? Unfortunately for you, what I just said is protected by my right to free speech – well, at least it should be… Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Free speech, by definition, is the principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of reprisal, censorship, or legal sanctions. In almost every country in the world this is more than just a principle: it is a human right. For example, if I wanted to express my opinion about someone like Donald Trump, I could do so without having to worry about being punished. So why does “hate speech” exist? However, to summarize, the definition of hate speech varies greatly depending on the source used; Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic/national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Many constitutions recognize this and add an exception to the free speech law already in place. But doesn't this simply deny the fundamental idea of ​​free speech? This is not a rhetorical question: the answer is yes. The whole notion of hate speech is fundamentally flawed. The idea that all but one category of speech can be protected is simply absurd. Freedom of speech is the legal right of an individual or community to express any ideas, opinions, arguments or views they may have. It protects all types of speech that fall into this category. Hate speech, on the other hand, is speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group based on who they are. Condemns speeches that fall into this category. One of the main problems is that hate speech contradicts the idea of ​​free speech. One encompasses the other and you cannot simply say that “all speech is acceptable, expect this kind of speech because it offends people”. Do you see the contradiction here? A simple but effective example of how to demonstrate this can be found in what I call “the junk food example”. Let's say I tell you that “You can eat any food you want. But not junk food because it's not healthy." It doesn't make sense, right? I just told you that any type of food is acceptable to eat, but I also told you that you specifically cannot eat junk food. This undermines the fundamental idea that all food is available by suggesting that you cannot have this specific category of food because it is bad. When you think about it for more than 5 seconds you can immediately find the flaws in the reasoning. That said, what exactly is hate speech? Well, we know the broad definition, but what actually constitutes hate speech? It's not as simple as you might think. Another big problem with hate speech is that it's all subjective, meaning it differs from person to person. What offends one person will probably not offend another, which means that, logically, it cannot be classified. Hate speech could generally be classified as “offensive, hateful or speechunpopular". This is flawed because: offense is based on personal feeling, hatred is a feeling that varies enormously between people, and whether something is unpopular depends entirely on public opinion – no single aspect of this is objective. Here's an effective way to prove it to you. Let's say you are an American citizen in the mid-1800s. Slavery is widespread, yet there is a strong belief in the emancipation of slaves, and you decide to express your opinion. For many, this would be considered hate speech and an insult to the white population. Your opinion, at the time, would have been considered offensive, hateful and unpopular towards and within this group. Today, of course, we condemn the transatlantic slave trade, and any opinion in support of it is deemed unpopular by society and immediately attacked as offensive and hateful to black people. Offending is not a crime. Offending cannot constitute a crime because the fact that something is offensive is subjective. Just because you don't approve of something someone says doesn't mean they should be punished based solely on that. If someone tells a joke and you find it funny, does that mean it can objectively be classified as funny or even a joke? No. The answer is no. In the same way that comedy can't truly be classified, hate speech can't either. This quote from “Index on Censorship” CEO Jodie Ginsberg says it well; “Defending everyone's right to free speech must include defending the rights of those who say things we find shocking or offensive. The right to free expression must include the right to offend, otherwise freedom is meaningless. The subjective nature of hate speech led to the arrest and conviction of a man for a joke he made. If you've been keeping up with online media lately, you've probably heard of "The Nazi Pug Man." Markus Meechan, better known as "Count Dankula" is a Scottish YouTuber who recently gained a lot of media coverage for a Holocaust joke he made. In April 2016, he uploaded a video in which he teaches his girlfriend's pug to raise its paw in a Nazi salute when it says "Sieg Heil" and reacts to the phrase "Gas the Jew," among other things. According to Meechan, his girlfriend couldn't stop talking about how cute her pug (named Buddha) was and claims that the reason behind the video was to prank her by turning Buddha into the least cute thing she could think of: a Nazi. He was subsequently arrested and, in March 2018, was found guilty of breaching the Communications Act 2003 before being ordered to pay an £800 fine. After this story made headlines online, many comedians and celebrities such as Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry defended Dankula's actions. Hearing this story, you will probably believe that the video is in bad taste, just like many others at the time who were offended and reported the video to the police. If so, you probably also believe that his punishment is justified. But remember what I told you before about this kind of thing; you cannot justify punishment based on personal feeling. During Meechan's long trial, the court realized this problem and the only way to get a conviction was to willfully ignore the context of the video and paint him as a bigoted neo-Nazi. The intent of the video (vulgar humor to produce laughter) was also ignored. This is simply not valid and is a testament to the truly embarrassing legal system in this country. Meechan is currently fighting a legal battle to appeal his conviction and change the law to prevent things like this from happening to.”