Talk:Hate speech

History section - restricted to US

The History section only deals with the development of hate speech in the US, ignoring all other countries. I don't have the knowledge to broaden it; can someone take a look? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead currently ignores MOS and likely WP:DICDEF

• "Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. Cambridge Dictionary defines hate speech as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". Hate speech can include incitement based on social class or political beliefs. There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country."

Right off the the bat we have WP:REFERS ("is a term"), AND WP:NOTDICT (CD defines hate speech as...), (The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is..., Legal definitions of hate speech vary......

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

So rewrite it. It currently reads like a far right criticism of the concept. In fact, hate speech is illegal in most countries and therefore defined in law. Even the US, where hate speech is constitutionally protected, defines hate in its laws. (See Hate crime laws in the United States.) TFD (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:REFERS gives the example "is a term for", which is redundant, but here we use "is a term with", which is constructive. WP:NOTDICT only means to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia, but even encyclopedias features definitions for context, which is the case here. The article subject is a legal term and concept, thus definitions by different institutes and legislations is granted, to actually give reference and context for the rest of the text, which is especially relevant for hate speech, as one of its major issues and talk points is the varying definitions and its implications on freedom of expression. I think the current lead works, and im surprised this article isnt locked, which should be viewed as a signal that the current format works. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 01:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

My recollection is that several years ago the lead was continually under revision because editors could not agree, in good faith, on how to describe hate speech. That’s partly because of personal disagreement on the meaning, and also because legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country. The two dictionary definitions eventually made their way into the lead, with reliable cites, and the lead’s been reasonably stable since then. Given that history, I think this is an example of Ignore all rules. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Ignore all rules can definitely be applied here. Rewriting the lead as "Hate speech has varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition." reads worse.

The variant "Hate speech is a concept with varied meaning.." is also redundant, since concepts are philosophical.

Thinking about it, i had the thought of suggesting "Hate speech is a legal concept..", but this could snowball into "is a human rights violation..", which isnt universal (bla bla), so lets just keep it as is, since it does its job. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 04:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should look at how other crimes are discussed. For example, murder "is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction." It doesn't say, murder "is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition."

Obviously, each jurisdiction's criminal law may be written differently, and the criterion for whether a crime was committed may vary. TFD (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Problem is that murder is unanimously a crime, where as hate speech is a legal shitshow, largely lead by its stupid name. How can we do an analog to the above example without "choosing sides", so to speak. Assuming most here are acquainted with the subject, im oversimplifying it as follows:

• A) hate is a human emotion and thus a human right, which in turn can be expressed as an opinion as freedom of expression
• B) hate easily incites violence, which states are required to prohibit, which violates the aforemention right

A catch 22. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 13:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Plus, not all jurisdictions deal with promotion of hatred by criminal offences. Some do so with civil liability, which is a point made in the article. Some do both, as is the case in Canada, with criminal offences federally, and civil liability in some provinces. None of which use the term “hate speech” in their definitions. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The claim in the article is not supported by the sources provided. Nonetheless, even if hate is not part of the law in every single country, it does not mean it cannot be defined. Not every jurisdiction for example has laws commemorating independence, but it does not mean the concept is ambiguous.

The US has hate crimes in The Civil Rights Act 1968. It is a hate crime if anyone ""willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with ... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin." (18 U.S.C. § 245) There are over 10,000 hate crimes reported in the US every year. The US only differs in not having laws against hate speech, which is considered to be protected under the Bill of Rights.

People who defend hate speech do not claim the concept is meaningless but that the speech they defend is not hate speech because it is either true or fair comment. TFD (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

True, the US has laws about hate crimes. But this article is about hate speech, which is constitutionally protected in the US, not about hate crimes generally. And, I have seen claims that hate speech is a meaningless concept, because it boils down to someone being offended, or is politically motivated to reduce dissident opinions, and so on. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

So you are saying that hate is a clearly defined concept in US law. It is a motivation for crimes of violence against persons on the basis of their race, etc. But the meaning of hate is a mystery when it is directed in the form of speech. What's the difference? TFD (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

US law is not universal for English Wikipedia, and this is part of the deal at cause. We have too many institutions and people with differing opinions, while also having too many institutions and people who wish to assert their definition into act.

As for defining hate, this is also troublesome. Hate is an emotion, and this problematic when applied to law, as u can imagine. This can be covered in the article body, but preferrably not in the ingress.

Back to the topic. We have concluded that the current gray zone take is good, since it doesnt pick sides and thus we can desribe the subject from many directions apolitically. The issue brought forward from the OP is the WP:REFERS, which is really not a problem, but it shouldnt hurt to discuss options.

WP:NOTDICT can be discussed as well, but since the current functional lead begins by stating that the topic has many differing definitions, it is suitable to actually list definitions from major institutions, simply to get the reader up to speed. This way we users dont have to argue about definitions, from the getgo. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 05:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

As OP, I'm grateful for the salient points that have been raised here, and so far I appreciate everyone's shared insights. If there's no way to improve it or find a consensus out of the discussion, I have no intention of beating a dead horse. If it's current state is the most reasonable solution at this time, I can accept that. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The current writing presents a false view that the concept is controversial or ill-defined. In fact the definitions are consistent. TFD (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)