Why does Britain have laws against so-called ‘hate speech’?

The word ‘hate’ is enormously popular these days in Britain and frequently used in the context of ethnicity or religion

We are all of us thoroughly familiar these days with the concept of hate speech, that is to say unpleasant, offensive or threatening language directed against people because of innate characteristics, such as skin colour, gender, sexuality or nationality. Of course, the act of saying horrible or hurtful things about such groups did not begin in the 1960s, it has been around since the dawn of time. It was not until 1968 though that people came up with the idea of beginning to set out in law the first classification of the modern idea of hate speech. Certainly, before that time, there had been no specific laws in either Britain or the United States which prohibited people from being derogatory or insulting about others solely because they belong to large groups such as black people, women or Muslims.

     The first law which outlined what we now understand to be hate speech was the American Civil Rights Act of 1968, which made it a federal crime for anybody who ‘willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin’. Note that this covers ‘intimidation’, that is to say words alone which cause distress or fear directed towards somebody because of their inherent characteristics. I give a link to the Wikipedia article on the civil rights act at the foot of this article. President Johnson introduced this legislation to tackle the situation faced by African Americans of course, particularly those living in the so-called deep south. Black people who wished to vote, for instance, were sometimes threatened to prevent them from registering to vote, so the clause about intimidation was necessary.   

      It is far from clear though that a law introduced in one country to tackle a specific situation of that kind should be adopted by other countries as a general principle, but that is of course what has happened. It is ultimately why we in Britain today are liable to face prosecution if we say the wrong things about people because of their nationality, sexuality, gender, disability, ethnicity and so on. It is why a wide-ranging law is due to be passed in the Republic of Ireland which is designed to deal with hate speech. The question is, are such laws really needed as a general thing, in all countries and at all times? It has been said though that when America sneezes, Britain catches a cold, and it was perhaps inevitable that once a law had been passed in the United States to make it a crime to say threatening things to black people, that this country would eventually follow suit.

    Certainly, we in Britain used to get along well enough before the idea of hate speech was dreamed up and made an offence. Insulting behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace has been a criminal offence in this country since 1936. The Public Order act passed that year, designed to deal with Oswald Mosely’s British Union of Fascists, says that, ‘Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.’ I give a link to the 1936 Public Order Act in the description to this video. This act seems to cover all that is necessary really. If I use insulting or abusive words to somebody in public and it looks as though a breach of the peace might ensue, that is a crime. That covers quite adequately what most of us mean by hate speech. If I start hurling abuse at Muslims in the street or calling people by offensive racial slurs, the 1936 act is enough to see me arrested. Together with one or two older pieces of legislation, it means that anybody who is likely to cause trouble by being rude or offensive about other people is committing a crime. For most of us I think, preventing disorder and violence caused by intemperate language is probably as far as the law needs to go. It is not at all clear why it should be an offence to say unpleasant things which are not likely to provoke trouble and are merely upsetting to this or that person. This is another thing entirely. The 1968 Civil Rights Act introduced the same distinction of course. It became an offence to intimidate a person with words or to threaten or interfere with somebody on the grounds of race, but it was not made illegal to say horrible and hurtful things. There has been what is sometimes described as ‘mission creep’.

     This is where, some people think, the law has taken a step too far. It is very right and proper that I should be forbidden by law from menacing or intimidating somebody simply because that individual is black or homosexual or a woman. It is also right that it should be illegal for me to provoke trouble in public by shouting insults at people based on their religion, ethnicity and so on. But is it really necessary that it should be against the law to say unpleasant things generally about this or that group? That is to say to express a negative or contemptuous opinion about homosexuals or Muslims for instance? This is unlikely to intimidate anybody and nor will it provoke a breach of the peace. It may be an unpleasant thing to do, and I am sure that homosexuals or Muslims will be distressed or hurt by such an action, but should it really be against the law? Should the law step in to protect people from being offended by the opinions expressed by others, even if those opinions are ill founded, untrue or unpleasant?

This is how the idea of hate speech has mutated over the last fifty years or so, from a perfectly sensible and proportionate response to a crisis in one country, the United States, to a general principle across the western world that nobody must ever be insulted or despised because of who they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/section/5/enacted#:~:text=Any%20person%20who%20in%20any,be%20guilty%20of%20an%20offence.