Hateful Counterspeech

Abstract Faced with hate speech, oppressed groups can use their own speech to respond verbal oppressors. This “counterspeech,” however, sometimes itself takes on a hateful form. paper explores the moral standing of such “hateful counterspeech.” Is there fundamental asymmetry between counterspeech, and utterances dominant or oppressive groups? Or are claims that an exists indefensible? I argue for intermediate position. There is key these two forms speech. But, this notwithstanding, counterspeech capable enacting serious harms—and so, contrary what many legal theorists have argued, it in principle appropriate object regulation. begin by considering central argument thinking not seriously troubling. holds lack authority—and, extension, “speaker power.” Yet argument, suggest, sits tension fact low-status members can, through utterances, harm groups. Philosophers language developed sophisticated arguments explain last phenomenon: they argued speaker power relativised particular jurisdictions; be acquired dynamically local settings; socially dispersed. that, light arguments, appears too, generate harms. Nevertheless, show conclusion compatible recognising crucial