Tackling Hate Speech

Freedom of speech. As a columnist for The Exonian and an avid journalist, I’ve come to greatly respect this right. Journalism has truly been the quintessential context for expression, and I feel that this right to expression and speech defines me as an American. I justify my own identity in light of this singular right. However, I’ve found it intriguingly antithetical that this very right justifies the actions of those who worship hateful ideologies and espouse hateful speech, which is the very non-inclusive rhetoric that my op-eds strive to rebut.

Recently, this dual nature of free speech resurfaced in President Trump’s “Re-Tweet” of a sensitive post of a far-right, anti-immigration group, Britain First, on Twitter. Twitter recently vowed to retract the vaunted blue “Verified” button from any account that espouses speech that is detrimental and deliberately offensive to other races and cultures. So, is the obvious answer just to take Britain First’s “Verified” status away? Is the solution to hate speech using technology and shutting it all out?

Not really. If anything, simply blocking hate speech might actually perpetuate future such acts. In essence, a move by Twitter to delete Britain First’s account would bring even more publicity to their deleterious ideology. Any punitive measure, as serious as it may be, will always draw in more people who inherently believe that the punishment was unwarranted. We have to also concede that hate speech is legal, and furthermore, expected, by the First Amendment. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage respectful debate: even if I disagree with someone’s perspective on a certain issue, their right to voice that opinion constitutes the idea of free speech.

Even though American society has made huge strides in legislation, bias and prejudice continues to rend communities apart.

If anything, the concept of disagreement lends itself to more open-mindedness and more balanced representation of opinions. Inclusion lies at the center of our own Harkness pedagogy as well as our cultural competency objectives here at Exeter, but that inclusion will greatly depend upon the diverse opinions of the Exeter populace.

So, how do we combat hate speech? Looking back at the example of the Harkness table (something I think we’ll all be doing at the end of our journeys here), the solution may as well be in more speech. Like the Chisholm-Schwartz assembly debate last fall, we can move towards that archetype of civilized political discourse by setting an example ourselves. I’m not suggesting that we should go and mine for every hateful comment on Twitter and reply to it, but we should collectively as a community at least hear out other ideologies. With the right of free speech, we don’t need to necessarily listen to differing perspectives, but that is the key to the major step that will alleviate the effects of hate speech: the response.

Of course, this response can take many shapes and forms. From social media campaigns to online forums to talking in-person at conventions, gradual change can be achieved by respectfully responding and rebutting. However, I acknowledge that this can sometimes also be dangerous, especially in light of the past summer’s devastating events including the tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia. Social media should continue to outright ban ridiculously discriminatory content, but a supplementary strategy will be needed to tackle the cliques of group thinkers espousing discriminatory notions. Reddit actually proposed a system to Wired in 2015 regarding giving sub-Reddits for groups with hateful ideologies, but providing more resources for moderators to collaborate to come up with targeted responses to rebut some of the major cornerstones of those perspectives. Reddit moderators described how a Superman radio show in the late 40s leaked codewords and secrets of the KKK that an undercover social activist had found. The KKK actually boycotted the show’s sponsors after the show declared a decrease in recruiting and membership for the Klan.

It’s true that hateful ideologies can be founded on our strong group thinking, but even stronger coordinated collaboration in response can eventually unravel those foundations.

From the Twitter pages of the most influential leaders like Donald Trump or Barack Obama to even the most innocuous cat videos on YouTube, the current hyperpolarized climate in politics has infiltrated the comments of almost every social media application.

Even though American society has made huge strides in legislation, bias and prejudice continues to rend communities apart. Hate speech has been nurtured by bias for years and the natural response has thus far been censorship, but that response contradicts the First Amendment and only gives more credence to espousers of discriminatory ideologies ironically claiming discriminatory treatment.

Instead, we can leverage that same cherished freedom of expression to respectfully and thoughtfully discredit discriminatory bias, all the while moving closer to universal cultural acceptance.