Article published in:
Hate speech: Definitions, interpretations and practices
Edited by Fabienne H. Baider, Sharon Millar and Stavros Assimakopoulos
[Pragmatics and Society 11:2] 2020
► pp. 177–195

Incitement to discriminatory hatred, illocution and perlocution

| University of Malta
Even though there seem to be no objectively defined criteria about what constitutes hate speech, a lot of legislation and policy making currently aims at combating it. This paper sets out to define hate speech under its standard legal understanding of ‘incitement to discriminatory hatred’, by adopting a speech-act theoretic perspective. My main proposal is that the Austinian distinction between illocution and perlocution can be pivotal in this process, since hate speech may be an illocutionary act that is typically tied to the recognition of a speaker’s intention to incite discriminatory hatred, but one which can only be defined if one takes into account its speaker’s intended perlocutionary effects; that is, the intention of the speaker to trigger a particular kind of response from some audience. Against this backdrop, I turn to show how a reworked Searlean notion of felicity conditions can be usefully applied in the delineation of hate speech under this legal conception.
Keywords: hate speech, incitement, discriminatory discourse, speech act theory, illocution, perlocution
Article outline
  • 1.The elusiveness of hate speech
  • 2.Illocution, perlocution and the remit of hate speech law
  • 3.Defining hate speech under the incitement to discriminatory hatred criterion
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18071.ass
References
Alkiviadou, Natalie
2017 “Regulating Hate Speech in the EU.” In Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective, ed. by Stavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne Baider, and Sharon Millar, 6–10. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Altman, Andrew
1993 “Liberalism and Campus Hate Speech: A Philosophical Examination.” Ethics 103 (2): 302–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros, Fabienne Baider, and Sharon Millar
(eds) 2017 Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L.
1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baider, Fabienne, Stavros Assimakopoulos, and Sharon Millar
2017 “Hate Speech in the EU and the C.O.N.T.A.C.T. Project.” In Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective, ed. by Stavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne Baider, and Sharon Millar, 1–6. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Brown, Alexander
2015 Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017a “What Is Hate Speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate.” Law and Philosophy 36 (4): 419–468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017b “What Is Hate Speech? Part 2: Family Resemblances.” Law and Philosophy 36 (5): 561–613. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith
1997 Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cortese, Anthony
2006 Opposing Hate Speech. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union
2008 “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” Official Journal of the European Union L 328/55. http://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/LexUriServ​/LexUriServ​.do​?uri​=OJ:L:2008:328:0055:0058:en:PDF
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic
2009 “Four Observations about Hate Speech.” Wake Forest Law Review 441: 353–370.Google Scholar
Devine, Patricia G., E. Ashby Plant, and Irene V. Blair
2001 “Classic and Contemporary Analyses of Racial Prejudice.” In Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes, ed. by Rupert Brown, and Sam Gaertner, 198–217. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dovidio, John F., and Samuel L. Gaertner
1998 “On the Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: The Causes, Consequences, and Challenges of Aversive Racism.” In Confronting Racism: The Problem and the Response, ed. by Jennifer L. Eberhardt, and Susan T. Fiske, 3–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3: Speech Acts), ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo
1993 “The Impasse of Perlocution.” Journal of Pragmatics 20 (5): 405–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornsby, Jennifer, and Rae Langton
1998 “Free Speech and Illocution.” Legal Theory 4 (1): 21–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iganski, Paul
1999 “Legislating Against Hate: Outlawing Racism and Antisemitism in Britain.” Critical Social Policy 19 (1): 129–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis
1998 “The Speech Act Status of Incitement: Perlocutionary Acts Revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics 29 (5): 571–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langton, Rae
1993 “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 22 (4): 293–330.Google Scholar
2012 “Beyond Belief: Pragmatics in Hate Speech and Pornography.” In Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech, ed. by Ishani Maitra and Mary Kate McGowan, 72–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2016 “Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice.” Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (4): 865–873. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leets, Laura
2003 “Disentangling Perceptions of Subtle Racist Speech: A Cultural Perspective.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22 (2): 145–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Abigail
2010 The Cost of Free Speech: Pornography, Hate Speech, and their Challenge to Liberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGonagle, Tarlach
2013 “The Council of Europe Against Online Hate Speech: Conundrums and Challenges.” Council of Europe Expert Paper. http://​rm​.coe​.int​/16800c170f
McGowan, Mary Kate
2009 “Oppressive Speech.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (3): 389–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Dimitrina
2010 “ ‘Smoke and Mirrors’: The Durban Review Conference and Human Rights Politics at the United Nations.” Human Rights Law Review 10 (1): 129–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Post, Robert
2009 “Hate Speech.” In Extreme Speech and Democracy, ed. by Ivan Hare and James Weinstein, 123–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Andrew F.
2016 “Defining Hate Speech.” Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016–20. Boston University School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 16–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z.
1995 “An Analytical Map of Social Scientific Approaches to the Concept of Law.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 15 (4): 501–535. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsesis, Alexander
2013 “Inflammatory Hate Speech: Offense versus Incitement.” Minnesota Law Review 971: 101–152.Google Scholar
UN General Assembly
1966 “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” United Nations Treaty. http://​www​.ohchr​.org​/EN​/ProfessionalInterest​/Pages​/CCPR​.aspx
van Dijk, Teun A.
1995 “Ideological Discourse Analysis.” New Courant 41: 135–161.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy
2012 The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Anne
2009 Manual on Hate Speech. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
West, Caroline
2017 “Freedom of Expression and Derogatory Words.” In A Companion to Applied Philosophy, ed. by Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Kimberley Brownlee, and David Coady. 236–252. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Whillock, Rita Kirk, and David Slayden
(eds) 1995 Hate Speech. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Culpeper, Jonathan
2021. Impoliteness and hate speech: Compare and contrast. Journal of Pragmatics 179 ► pp. 4 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.