Hate speech is a real problem. Is there a real solution and if so, where should we look for it? I began this conversation with Claude in the previous column.

What some governments and much of the media appear to promote is what you refer to as a “static definition” that plays into the perverse logic of Humpty Dumpty. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is evident not so much in the UN’s campaign but in the “war on hate speech” promoted in many countries in the West: the characterization of legitimate political commentary as “antisemitism.” The result is that people are encouraged to categorize hate speech as the use of specific words. But the one positive thing Humpty Dumpty taught us is to be aware of the fact that is subjectively true of all language: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Would you agree that the issue the UN and many individual governments claim to be concerned about but fail to analyze is exactly what Humpty Dumpty says: deciding who is to be the master?

I agree with you about the merits of the Rabat Plan. I also agree when you say “Humpty’s position is absurd precisely because Alice — representing ordinary communicative rationality — can see through it.” But isn’t Carroll making another point. Alice can see through it but, because she is a child, she not only has no power to critique it, she also cannot understand that it is important to critique it? Doesn’t this recapitulate one of the ways in which linguistic and ideational power is exercised today. Those who have an interest in calling out authority when it is inconsistent and illogical have been conditioned to believe that authority’s inconsistency and illogic is a privilege of the powerful that cannot be called into question.

Our conversation continued when I formulated a new prompt:

Given the complexity of strategies used by those who, Humpty Dumpty style, establish their position of authority, wouldn’t it be wiser to conclude that hate speech is indeed a serious civilizational problem, but the problem is with the first term (hate) rather than the second term (speech)? And isn’t the focus on speech itself a strategy to avoid even thinking about what hate is psychologically, socially and morally? Hate is a natural human emotion that may or may not be expressed through language. The cultivation of hatred within specific social groups is a feature of all societies. Confronting it is absolutely necessary for any healthy society. But banning it generally adds another reason that contributes to, amplifies and in some sense justifies the emotion of hatred. Shouldn’t we be focusing on what hate is rather than seeking to legislate against linguistic expression?

Claude’s response began with the following observation:

In tomorrow’s concluding column, we will build on Claude’s developed insights about “focusing on what hate is.” Here’s a thought experiment to go away with until tomorrow: What do you think Claude will propose to cut through the Humpty Dumpty knot?

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Commenting Guidelines

Please read our commenting guidelines before commenting.

Please agree to the guidelines before proceeding.