The modern world is a jumble of opinions and criticisms, and terms like Freedom of Speech, Cancel Culture or Hate Speech are often thrown in now and then at every instance of taking a side about anything in society.

I am that person who finds it very hard to take a side in most cases, but that is because I see things and people through a very kind and forgiving lens. But when justice is concerned, we cannot ignore certain things and choose to stay in the grey area.

Sometimes, we find ourselves compelled to take a side — to choose between right or wrong, or left or right. This is where it gets complicated because, no matter how much you agree with the idea that ‘cancel culture should be cancelled’ in certain instances, it may be perceived as a force for change for many.

The complexity lies not just in understanding the context of a particular episode but in acknowledging that this understanding may vary for different people.

Let us begin by exploring what brought us to this point.

When Freedom of Speech was recognized as a human right, it opened avenues for a revolutionary modern society where people would feel more empowered and freer to put across and spread their views and words.

However, it also showcased an example of how such rights can be misused and the power of words can be steered away from a progressive to a regressive graph.

Let us understand how!

1. FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Freedom of Speech is a component of Freedom of Expression, allowing freedom to express ideas or opinions without fearing reprisal.

As per Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

It declares that everyone is entitled to the right to form opinions without interference and everyone is entitled to the right of freedom of expression; this encompasses the freedom to seek, receive, and share information and ideas of all kinds, irrespective of borders, whether orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other chosen media.” [Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19. United Nations, 1948.]

Let’s delve into the case of Salman Rushdie, an Indian-born British-American novelist whose writing style I greatly admire. He is a celebrated author, earning the Booker Prize in 1981 for his work, “Midnight’s Children.” However, his fourth book, “The Satanic Verses,” published in 1988, sparked immediate controversy within the Muslim world. Many thought it disrespected Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Rushdie, in crafting the book and incorporating a narrative from his imagination, exercises his freedom of speech—an entitlement protected by International Law.

However, the uproar caused by the book is what categorizes this speech as Hate Speech for some. Let’s delve deeper to understand why.

2. HATE SPEECH

Internationally, there is no universally accepted definition of hate speech within human rights law. Ongoing discussions focus on its intersection with freedom of opinion and expression, as well as issues of non-discrimination and equality.

The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language concerning a person or a group based on who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.” [Source: What is hate speech?]

Revisiting the example of Salman Rushdie illuminates the complexities surrounding hate speech. Even if unintentional, his book stirred sentiments among Muslims worldwide, with some perceiving it as an affront to their revered religious figure. His right to express thoughts turned, for many, into an example of hate speech.

As a Muslim, I do not categorize Rushdie’s expression as hate speech. My use of ‘saw’ after the Prophet’s name reflects the customary practice among Muslims, signifying “Peace and blessings be upon him.” Despite regularly encountering online hate speech about the Prophet, someone I am used to revere in my culture, I remain unfazed.

Many share this understanding. The right to free expression is fundamental, yet labelling content as hate speech hinges on mindset and perspective. The complexity deepens when assessing the degree of offence caused—some instances incite violence, while others might influence negatively without explicit intent.

In Rushdie’s case, I not only affirm his right to express but also contend that his work does not qualify as hate speech. But not everyone may agree with this, and that, again, is their right. People can challenge anything they find offensive to their culture.

However, the primary challenge in combating hate speech lies in identifying what exactly falls under the category of hate speech.

Let’s explore the common components of hate speech and how they impact the masses.

a. The Speech or Expression that causes Offense to the Masses

When words become profoundly offensive, causing widespread anger and distress, they fall into this category of hate speech. This type of expression has the potential to incite violence and spread harmful ideas throughout society, fostering hatred and aggression.

For example, it is widely acknowledged that many of Adolf Hitler’s speeches to his Nazi Army were hate speeches. These speeches played a role in creating an environment where thousands of individuals fell victim to brutal violence driven by prejudiced and violent ideologies.

When a speech promotes and celebrates hatred similarly, it is usually denounced by the masses due to the observed historical consequences of such provocations. Navigating the battle against hate speech requires precision in identifying what falls within this category.

b. The Speech or Expression that causes Offense to a section of Society

When a speech is deemed hateful by a specific segment of society, it reflects a contentious perspective within the larger community.

Such expressions may not universally incite fury and upset, but within certain circles, they are recognized as hate speech. This type of speech, though divisive, can still carry the potential to foster animosity and negatively influence the thinking of those who resonate with its divisive ideas.

Take, for instance, the movie “Joker” (2019), a recent example sparking discussions on whether it could be interpreted as hate speech. This film explores the backstory of the iconic Batman villain, the Joker. While some contend that the movie delves into the intricacies of mental health and societal challenges, others express worries about its potential to glorify violence and anarchic behaviour.

The diverse viewpoints surrounding “Joker” underscore the ongoing debates regarding its depiction of a marginalized character and whether it effectively addresses societal issues or unintentionally endorses harmful ideologies.

HOW TO DEAL WITH HATE SPEECH

Hate speech, whether it occurs online or offline, can affect us in various ways. Even if we try to ignore it, its impact lingers. We may choose to turn a blind eye or stand up against the hatred directed at a person, group, or cause.

However, when it influences individuals who may not be fully aware or are easily persuaded, it can have a detrimental effect on society.

This influence may lead to regressive actions, encourage wrongdoing, foster bullying, and create more bullies.

Here are some ways to address hate speech, even if you are not the direct target. By following these tips, you can make a positive impact and contribute to a better environment.

[Source- https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/take-action/engage]

Stay Calm, Think Critically and Analyze

Before you are triggered by any comment or action which you find hateful, you must observe what is happening.

Understand the context and subject of a matter, and think whether whatever has been said or written, offline or online, should be considered hate speech or not.

If you are sure it is hate speech, then analyze what kind of hate speech it is so that you know who will be triggered by it.

It is usually difficult to think fast and react appropriately in a real scenario compared to when you read something online. So it is best to refrain from acting irresponsibly and spreading further negativity.

When online, understand all the perspectives and analyze whether you have enough awareness to respond to hateful content.

Do not be misinformed

It is best to refrain from any argument to from making any comments if you are not sure of the topic. Also, be sure that what you know of a particular subject is the truth and not a fabricated story doing rounds on the internet.

I have been a victim of being triggered by a video circulating over the net which I found violent and disturbing. I shared it over my social media platform criticising and calling out the practice. While my intention was good, someone pointed out that the story had a different cultural significance and the story captions with which the video was doing rounds on the net were a fabricated story.

Always fact-check any information you find online before re-sharing it or commenting on it. There are many ways to find out the source of information on the net. Offline, it is always a good idea to pause and reflect on any heard information to ensure it is correct.

Call it Out but respond politely

Once you understand a comment is genuinely hateful, don’t hesitate to speak up. However, it’s important to do so without resorting to hatefulness yourself. Stay polite and within moral boundaries when expressing your opposition, no matter the platform. Calling out hate speech is a chance to replace negativity with understanding. Even if you become a target, your principled stance can inspire others to stand up against hate.

Show Solidarity

Individuals facing hate speech may not always be able to defend themselves. Therefore, demonstrating solidarity with those individuals or supporting a noble cause facing online harassment is a way of contributing to a better world

Report Abuse

Many online platforms have rules to keep conversations respectful.

Learn the guidelines of social media platforms to protect users from hate speech. In serious situations, report to administrators or reach out to organizations fighting hate speech.

You can also file a complaint with the police in some countries, using online tools if available.

Promote Awareness

In the face of negativity, countering it with positivity becomes crucial, and one effective way is through creating awareness. Often, people fail to grasp the harmful effects of hateful content or expressions, both online and offline, until they experience it personally.

Therefore, it becomes essential to educate individuals about this age-old yet modern problem. The online world has facilitated the rapid spread of hateful ideas, but it’s also the same platform that can be utilized to eliminate negativity by consistently opposing it.

By disseminating positive ideas and messages of peace, harmony, and love, we have the potential to dismantle the foundation of hatred faster than it grows. Advocating for responsible behaviour should take precedence if we aim to divert individuals away from spreading hate.

The Neo-Protagonist, through this article and many others, strives to contribute to this cause. While I may not be a charismatic public speaker capable of captivating millions, I find solace in writing and expressing positive thoughts. Likewise, you can radiate positivity in ways that resonate with your strengths, whether through writing, actions, music, art, or other means.

If you intend to do good, you will inevitably find a way.

Advocate for Change

If you’re genuinely passionate about combating hateful ideologies and content to protect our world, consider joining or initiating a group to actively campaign against it. Engaging in activism to support a cause is a more intensive approach that can yield significant results. Explore their specific goals and activities to align with your values and contribute effectively.

Here are some examples of organizations committed to combating hateful content:

1. Anti-Defamation League (ADL): ADL works to combat anti-Semitism and all forms of hate through various educational programs and advocacy.
2. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): SPLC focuses on tracking and exposing hate groups, promoting tolerance, and advocating for social justice.
3. Hope Not Hate: Based in the UK, Hope Not Hate works to challenge and counteract extremism, fostering a more inclusive society.
4. Stop Hate UK: This organization provides support to victims of hate crimes and discrimination while working to prevent such incidents through education and awareness.
5. ExitUSA: ExitUSA is an organization that helps individuals leave extremist groups and ideologies by providing support and resources.
6. Life After Hate: Committed to countering racism and violent extremism, Life After Hate offers support to individuals who want to leave hate groups.
7. ADL’s Center on Extremism: This centre focuses on researching and exposing extremism, offering expertise to law enforcement and the public.
8. Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks): Tell MAMA addresses anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia, providing support to victims and working towards a safer society.
9. No Hate Speech Movement: A youth campaign initiated by the Council of Europe, this movement aims to combat online hate speech through awareness and education.
10. Combat Anti-Semitism (CAS): CAS is a global grassroots movement working to combat anti-Semitism through various initiatives and advocacy efforts.
11. Hollaback!: Focused on ending harassment in public spaces, Hollaback! provides resources and tools for individuals to share their stories and take action against harassment.
12. Muslim Advocates: This organization works to combat bigotry and discrimination against Muslims in the United States through legal advocacy and public education.
13. Equality Labs: Equality Labs addresses discrimination, bigotry, and online hate targeting marginalized communities through community building and advocacy.
14. Facing History and Ourselves: This organization provides educational resources to promote understanding and combat racism, anti-Semitism, and prejudice.
15. Center for Humane Technology: Founded by former tech insiders, this centre focuses on addressing the negative impacts of technology, including the spread of hate speech online.

3. CANCEL CULTURE

As per the dictionary of Merriam-Webster, Cancel culture is the practice or tendency of engaging in mass cancelling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure.

As of 2023, it has mostly negative connotations. This is because in most cases it leads to or involves boycotting individuals accused of offensive behaviour or statements, essentially erasing and nullifying their previous accomplishments.

Please note -Typically, individuals expressing racist, sexist, or transphobic opinions, or engaging in harassment or violence are the ones subject to “cancellation.”

It is supposed to be a practice which can deliver better results. But in many cases, Cancel Culture ends up doing more damage than good. This is because it in its attempt to eradicate what is negative according to a certain context, ends up causing different kinds of personal and other losses to a person or organisation, which might not be well deserved.

This is exactly why there is a widespread disagreement regarding cancel culture with voices even demanding that cancel culture itself should be ‘cancelled’.

The problem is that we are the snowflake generation, which means that less resilient and more prone to taking offence than the previous generations. While a part of this has also made us a woke generation which ensures that voices are protecting human rights, the empowered voices of cancel culture can also strip down a person of their rights.

There have to be just and righteous leaders within organisations fighting against hate and other evils, who can make proper judgments between when to ‘Call out’ a hate speech and when to actively ‘protest’ for a hate speech. This dilemma is the crux of the matter regarding why ‘Cancel Culture’ is in a negative light.

A lot of times, misinformation, biased understanding, or different ideologies can be a reason a certain part of society chooses to protest against someone whom they do not agree with or see as a threat to a cause they hold dear. But there can be a set of different sections of society who do not agree with their protest and see it as a way to disempower the basic rights of humans.

At its worst, cancel culture can also take a violent turn and influence (even if inadvertently) to cancel someone or something. This force of the mob is a powerful phenomenon capable of ushering positive change, but it should also learn to be subjective and act responsibly.

[Source-https://www.thecollector.com/is-cancel-culture-toxic/]

Rushdie’s example

This is what happened in the case of Salman Rushdie, who received death threats and had to go into hiding. But it affected not only his life but it launched an international crisis.

On February 14, 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran and a prominent Shi’a Muslim figure, issued a fatwa, declaring a death sentence for Salman Rushdie and those associated with the publication of his work.

 This led to a significant global controversy, lasting for several years, marked by threats and bombings targeting bookstores.

Even in 2022, there was an assassination attempt wherein Salman Rushdie was stabbed as he was about to give a public lecture in the United States. The writer’s entire life has been taken over by this international rage against him.

Rushdie might have done something despicable as per those who went against him and people should have the right to protest it and call it out peacefully, but the violence the protests culminated into is not good for any society.

Is Cancel Culture Effective?

Cancel Culture’s drawbacks arise from its irresponsible practice, marked by constant judgment without restraint or accountability. This has rendered cancel culture toxic, spreading negativity online, damaging reputations, fostering hatred, and hindering its intended positive societal impact.

One controversial example often cited as a problematic instance of cancel culture involves the comedian, Shane Gillis. In 2019, shortly after being announced as a new cast member on Saturday Night Live (SNL), past instances of Gillis making offensive and insensitive remarks in his podcast came to light. The remarks included racial slurs and derogatory comments about various groups.

In response to the public outcry and pressure on social media, SNL decided to part ways with Gillis before he even appeared on the show. Critics argue that this swift decision to “cancel” Gillis without providing an opportunity for him to address or learn from his past comments raises concerns about fairness and due process. Some argue that cancel culture, in this case, may have deprived him of a chance for redemption or growth. This incident is often cited as an example of cancel culture’s potential to stifle dialogue and prevent individuals from learning and evolving.

The pros of Cancel Culture is its power to become a voice for people or causes which need attention. Its prime purpose is to call out Hate speech and bring Attention to Critical Social Issues. When practised responsibly, it can usher in significant positive change to the world.

The #MeToo movement was effective in raising awareness about the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault. It empowered survivors, held high-profile individuals accountable for their actions, prompted policy changes in workplaces, contributed to legal reforms, and led to a cultural shift in attitudes toward sexual misconduct. The movement continues to advocate for lasting change in societal attitudes and policies related to harassment.

Nevertheless, owing to the controversies surrounding its application, cancel culture is often more effectively utilized to identify and address hate speech or actions that promote hatred before escalating to more assertive forms of protest. Seeking reliable sources or consulting individuals with greater expertise before deciding to protest can be a valuable approach when confronted with something offensive.

ROLE OF MEDIA

The media plays a crucial role in the dynamics of hate speech, freedom of speech, and cancel culture.

1. Hate Speech: Media plays a significant role in either perpetuating or combating hate speech. Irresponsible reporting, biased coverage, or sensationalism can contribute to the spread of hate speech. On the other hand, responsible journalism involves promoting inclusivity, fact-checking, and avoiding the amplification of discriminatory rhetoric.
2. Freedom of Speech: Media serves as a platform for the exercise of freedom of speech. Journalists and media outlets can contribute to the free exchange of ideas, diverse perspectives, and the dissemination of information. However, the responsible exercise of this freedom is crucial to prevent the spread of misinformation or the glorification of harmful ideologies.
3. Cancel Culture: Media, especially social media, often acts as the catalyst for cancel culture. The rapid dissemination of information and opinions online can lead to swift and widespread judgments. Media coverage can influence public perception, contributing to the cancellation or rehabilitation of individuals based on their actions or statements.

In summary, the media’s role in shaping narratives and influencing public opinion makes it a powerful force in the dynamics of hate speech, freedom of speech, and the phenomena of cancel culture. Responsible journalism and ethical reporting are essential for promoting a balanced and constructive societal discourse.

CONCLUSION

I once befriended an elderly man at an old-age home, and our talks often revolved around books. One day, he shared how unnecessary sexual content in a book he was reading affected his enjoyment of the story. He also emphasized the importance of being considerate to fellow humans, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like race, nationality, and religion. I couldn’t agree more with him today.

In our generation, it’s tricky to know what might be offensive, and people can get upset about different things. Despite this, I believe we should focus on our intentions. While I value the freedom to challenge ideas, I try not to censor things unnecessarily.

Contradicting with the best behaviour involves protesting non-violently, ensuring information is accurate through fact-checking, and making the most of the freedom at your disposal.

We should use freedom of speech not to bring others down but to uplift, educate, and encourage positive intentions. In a world where words matter, being mindful of these principles can lead to more understanding conversations and collective progress.

“Many a battle is won by our morals,
Many a moral is lost in the Battles.’

-Saba Fatima