Abstract
Hate speech is a verbal expression, which is designed to promote hatred based on race, religion, ethnicity and violence between different communities . Hate speech are systematically used to lash hatred towards minorities and for inflaming regional, religious and ethnic passion. It has been repeatedly observed that inflaming and deleterious words have been used by people of influence to further their vested interests and incite violence. Indian laws as well as Malaysian laws forbid anyone from making hate speeches that disturb the communal harmony and creates discord among the people. When the issue of suppression of hate speech comes to purview, the notion of reasonable restriction comes into picture. Consequent debate narrows down to two sharply contrasting opinions ie: restraints v. freedom of speech and expression. It is difficult to balance both divergent opinions. Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, provides for the freedom of speech and expression but also places reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on the grounds of public order, decency and morality. Similarly, Article 10 of the Malaysian Constitution empowers the Malaysian citizens with the freedom of speech and expression subject to restrictions imposed by the Parliament. Whenever these contradictory opinions are presented in front of the court, even the Apex court of the respective countries has shown its reluctance towards curbing such communally charged statements. Even if the judgment restraining hate speech is pronounced, it often comes too late, sometimes after the damage has already been inflicted, thus failing to exert any deterrent effect. By using doctrinal research methods,this paper a) discusses the terminology of hate speech; b) analyzes different legal provisions that deals with hate speech in India and Malaysia; and c) discusses non-legal solutions to the problem. This paper argues that although several legal provisions are available to curb hate speech, Alternative Dispute Resolution and counter speech may be used as alternative ways to address hate speech.
Highlights
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity
By adding the term “speech” to the word, “hate” brings out a concept, which has held society in its grip throughout time, once a neologism a phenomenon that has crept into public discourse with an ease that the lexicon is no longer an uncharted territory but has become common parlance
Hate speech, composed of two very generic terms, hate and speech, in the eyes of a layman refers to words or connotations that have the potential of rousing one’s emotions, feelings that are averse towards certain objects
Summary
Hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. As Jeremy Waldron (2012) puts it that dignity is an immutable characteristic and this attack on dignity is not necessarily stemming primarily from an emotion of hate and fear, condescension, insecurity, making it clear that the phenomena is akin to a family of evils that come under the wider umbrella of hate This can be shown byFor example, a group of who were happily married men, walking on the street conversing with each other say that women as individuals must always be controlled in a way that they remain servile before men and their proper place is within the four walls of the house restricted to cooking and cleaning. A family of concepts contribute to hate speech making it an equivocal phrase and not a univocal concept
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
