User:WOMGEN1209/sandbox

The capacity of hate speech to harm has been long debated by philosophers, activists and psychologists alike. Such have been well documented, and include but are not limited to: compromising individual or group social status[Langton],  the creation or continuation of dangerous stereotypes[Matsuda], the varied psychological effects of chronic fear[Delgado], and a ‘silencing effect,’ wherein the credibility of an individual or group is so compromised that their ability to speak back against the hate-speaker is rendered useless.

Targets of Hate Speech

American philosopher, David Brink, considers the psychic costs resulting from hate speech, arguing that the costs can potentially constitute emotional distress, which is both harmful and legally actionable. Brink explains his view that “insofar as hate speech retards rather than advances deliberative values, hate speech regulation can be defended.” He argues that hate speech has adverse effects on deliberative interests, making it the worst kind of discriminatory speech. This perspective is rooted in Millian principles and John Stuart Mill’s construction of the harm principle.[Brink] In the opinion held by Brink and others, legal action should be taken to address hate speech in the United States because of the harm it causes. Jeremy Waldron shares this opinion and discusses how bigoted displays of hate speech specifically target and negate the social sense of assurance which members of vulnerable minority groups rely upon. Waldron maintains the importance of public assurance provided by the government, laws, and citizens in addressing harm and promoting justice for all.[Waldron]

Recognition Theory

Recognition theory notes that one’s practical identity — the description by which one values themself — is informed by the feedback, i.e. recognition, of other individuals and groups. Supporters of recognition theory, including Suzanne Whitten, believe that hate speech works to deny groups adequate recognition, thereby destroying an individual’s relationship with themself. In the absence of a positive practical identity, victims of hate speech find themselves maladjusted; they lack the ability to interact constructively with others, to view their work as valuable and to contribute meaningfully to society.[Whitten] The psychological manifestations of these harms have been reported extensively. For instance, the infamous doll tests, which assessed the opinions of children regarding a series of dolls identical in every feature besides skin color, found that the dark skinned dolls were described as “rough, funny, stupid, silly, smelly, stinky, dirty” by white and black children alike. Three fourths of a group of black four-year-old children preferred to play with the white dolls.[Delgado]

Effects of Hate Speech on Health

Individuals and groups that experience oppression and targeted displays of hate speech have been found to shoulder disproportionate rates of illness and other health issues. The immediate consequences of hate speech — including violence, marginalization, and discrimination — are associated with poor health.[Shultz et al.]  For instance, the prevalence of narcotics abuse and admission rates to public psychiatric hospitals are disproportionately higher for minority populations.[Peek et al.] This is also the case for several chronic health conditions, including high blood pressure and mortality rates from hypertension, hypertensive disease and stroke.[Williams] Confounding variables including socioeconomic status — the disparity of which is mentioned to be yet another effect of racist speech —  cannot explain away these trends, since they exist even among wealthy minority populations. As a consequence of hate speech, the psychosocial impact of discrimination evokes stress and often increases harmful behavior with implications in both individual and community health.[Sawyer et al.]

Discussion comments: Added a section about the harms of hate speech. Section reads as follows: 1. Brief introduction to the harms discussed. 2. Discussion of current scholarship on the topic including Millian principles on how hate speech harms. 3. Analysis of harms through a recognition theory lens. 4. Data regarding the effects of discriminatory speech on the health outcomes of minority individuals.