Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 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 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alkiviadou, Natalie
    2017 “Regulating Hate Speech in the EU.” InOnline Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective, ed. byStavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne Baider, and Sharon Millar, 6–10. Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman, Andrew
    1993 “Liberalism and Campus Hate Speech: A Philosophical Examination.” Ethics103 (2): 302–317. 10.1086/293497
    https://doi.org/10.1086/293497 [Google Scholar]
  3. Assimakopoulos, Stavros, Fabienne Baider, and Sharon Millar
    (eds) 2017Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑72604‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72604-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Austin, John L.
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baider, Fabienne, Stavros Assimakopoulos, and Sharon Millar
    2017 “Hate Speech in the EU and the C.O.N.T.A.C.T. Project.” InOnline Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective, ed. byStavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne Baider, and Sharon Millar, 1–6. Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Alexander
    2015Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315714899
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714899 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2017a “What Is Hate Speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate.” Law and Philosophy36 (4): 419–468. doi:  10.1007/s10982‑017‑9297‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9297-1 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2017b “What Is Hate Speech? Part 2: Family Resemblances.” Law and Philosophy36 (5): 561–613. doi:  10.1007/s10982‑017‑9300‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9300-x [Google Scholar]
  9. Butler, Judith
    1997Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cortese, Anthony
    2006Opposing Hate Speech. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Council of the European Union
    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. eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:0055:0058:en:PDF
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic
    2009 “Four Observations about Hate Speech.” Wake Forest Law Review44: 353–370.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Devine, Patricia G., E. Ashby Plant, and Irene V. Blair
    2001 “Classic and Contemporary Analyses of Racial Prejudice.” InBlackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes, ed. byRupert Brown, and Sam Gaertner, 198–217. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dovidio, John F., and Samuel L. Gaertner
    1998 “On the Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: The Causes, Consequences, and Challenges of Aversive Racism.” InConfronting Racism: The Problem and the Response, ed. byJennifer L. Eberhardt, and Susan T. Fiske, 3–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics (Vol. 3: Speech Acts), ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gu, Yueguo
    1993 “The Impasse of Perlocution.” Journal of Pragmatics20 (5): 405–432. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90038‑Q
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90038-Q [Google Scholar]
  17. Hornsby, Jennifer, and Rae Langton
    1998 “Free Speech and Illocution.” Legal Theory4 (1): 21–37. doi:  10.1017/S1352325200000902
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200000902 [Google Scholar]
  18. Iganski, Paul
    1999 “Legislating Against Hate: Outlawing Racism and Antisemitism in Britain.” Critical Social Policy19 (1): 129–141. doi:  10.1177/026101839901900102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026101839901900102 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kurzon, Dennis
    1998 “The Speech Act Status of Incitement: Perlocutionary Acts Revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics29 (5): 571–596. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00083‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00083-0 [Google Scholar]
  20. Langton, Rae
    1993 “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.” Philosophy & Public Affairs22 (4): 293–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2012 “Beyond Belief: Pragmatics in Hate Speech and Pornography.” InSpeech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech, ed. byIshani Maitra and Mary Kate McGowan, 72–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2016 “Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice.” Criminal Law and Philosophy10 (4): 865–873. doi:  10.1007/s11572‑014‑9349‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9349-7 [Google Scholar]
  23. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Leets, Laura
    2003 “Disentangling Perceptions of Subtle Racist Speech: A Cultural Perspective.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology22 (2): 145–168. doi:  10.1177/0261927X03022002001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X03022002001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Levin, Abigail
    2010The Cost of Free Speech: Pornography, Hate Speech, and their Challenge to Liberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230293960
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230293960 [Google Scholar]
  26. McGonagle, Tarlach
    2013 “The Council of Europe Against Online Hate Speech: Conundrums and Challenges.” Council of Europe Expert Paper. rm.coe.int/16800c170f
  27. McGowan, Mary Kate
    2009 “Oppressive Speech.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy87 (3): 389–407. doi:  10.1080/00048400802370334
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00048400802370334 [Google Scholar]
  28. Petrova, Dimitrina
    2010 “‘Smoke and Mirrors’: The Durban Review Conference and Human Rights Politics at the United Nations.” Human Rights Law Review10 (1): 129–150. doi:  10.1093/hrlr/ngp032
    https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngp032 [Google Scholar]
  29. Post, Robert
    2009 “Hate Speech.” InExtreme Speech and Democracy, ed. byIvan Hare and James Weinstein, 123–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  30. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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. doi:  10.2139/ssrn.2882244
  32. Tamanaha, Brian Z.
    1995 “An Analytical Map of Social Scientific Approaches to the Concept of Law.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies15 (4): 501–535. doi:  10.1093/ojls/15.4.501
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/15.4.501 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tsesis, Alexander
    2013 “Inflammatory Hate Speech: Offense versus Incitement.” Minnesota Law Review97: 101–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. UN General Assembly
    UN General Assembly 1966 “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” United Nations Treaty. www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  35. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1995 “Ideological Discourse Analysis.” New Courant4: 135–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Waldron, Jeremy
    2012The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674065086
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086 [Google Scholar]
  37. Weber, Anne
    2009Manual on Hate Speech. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. West, Caroline
    2017 “Freedom of Expression and Derogatory Words.” InA Companion to Applied Philosophy, ed. byKasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Kimberley Brownlee, and David Coady. 236–252. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Whillock, Rita Kirk, and David Slayden
    (eds) 1995Hate Speech. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error