The Effects of Hate Speech and How Best to Deal With Them
Natalie Alkiviadou · 2025
This chapter sets the second and last part of the foundational framework of the book by exploring the impact of hate speech and critically examining the suitability of regulation as a response to this phenomenon. It looks at the effect of hate speech on individuals, groups and society, considering work which argues that hate speech is linked to mass atrocities, hate crimes, emotional distress and discriminatory experiences. In the ambit of conceptualising responses to hate speech, it considers free speech through the marketplace of ideas, assessing arguments for and against this theoretical framework. The chapter examines the arguments in favour of hate speech regulation, focusing on the principles of human dignity and harm prevention. It critically engages with opposing arguments, highlighting concerns related to free speech and the broader impact of regulation, including the potential to exacerbate social conflict and suppress dissenting voices. Further, through a critical analysis of militant democracy, the chapter discusses the theory underpinning the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR/Court’s) overly and overtly restrictive approach to freedom of expression in hate speech cases. The chapter highlights the Court’s inadequate engagement with the theoretical and empirical issues surrounding hate speech, its impact and the effects of its regulation. Ultimately, the chapter aims to give food for thought to the highly complex and intertwined questions of (1) what, if any, are the real-life harms in hate speech and (2) if regulating speech is an appropriate response to hate speech. The book has no space or scope for a critical, in-depth assessment of normative and empirical issues surrounding hate speech; instead, the chapter serves as a scene-setter for core issues pertaining to hate speech and its harm. The overarching aim is to put forth normative and empirical work as an indicative template of themes and issues that the ECtHR should be tackling before making assertions about the impact of hate speech and the necessity of its restriction.