How Harmful Is Hate Speech As A Solution?

The line between harm and offence is often indistinct, yet the two are separate. People who are harmed have a limited choice in reaction, while people who are offended can choose to respond in different manners. For instance, a person is crossing the road when a car appears. The driver is drunk and unable to notice the pedestrian. Since the driver is unable to come to a halt, he collides into the pedestrian. The pedestrian suffers from emotional trauma as well as physical injuries, he is harmed. In another situation, the driver manages to stop in time. The pedestrian is unharmed, but he may take offence at the driver. In this essay, hate speech is viewed as the main means of creating offence, and censorship as a solution to hate speech is discussed.
Censorship is no easy feat. Some factors we have to consider before deciding if a statement is bad or good speech are the intentions of the speaker, the context in which it is spoken and the identities of the speaker and audience. The speaker could be a friend making a joke or a terrorist meaning to cause harm. Hate speech may be harmless if spoken at home but harmful if said at a speech. A statement of hate speech is more likely to be taken as offence if uttered by a politician than by a child. Also, a racist comment may anger an interracial crowd but not one with people of the same race. It is challenging to decide what should be censored and what should not. No one can be a fair judge to draw the boundaries; there is bound to be offence taken. For example, can we call a documentary of African tribes with naked women pornography? Also, even after deciding what to censor, not everything can be censored. For instance, people can still proceed with hate speech privately. Plus, who should be the one to decide what to censor? Should it be done by the general public in polls or by the lawmakers of the country? Without deciding where the exact boundaries lie, we cannot censor information