ABSTRACT
Chapter 7 makes a series of arguments that political figures have special moral duties to refrain from hate speech, reflecting their power, authority and influence. One argument points to the violent effects of hyperpolitical hate speech, but provides alternative explanatory frameworks to the idea of direct causation. We also argue that hyperpolitical hate speech can adversely impact access to democratic participation, public trust in government, faith in democracy, confidence in lawmaking and public assurance of civic dignity, not to mention the autonomy of audiences. In addition, we argue that if political figures have a special moral responsibility to counter-speak against hate speech, then this also implies refraining from hate speech itself. Next we examine insights from applied ethics which suggest political figures have a moral duty to show mutual respect to the governed by refraining from hate speaking. We also consider whether counter-speech itself shows a lack of mutual respect. And we appeal to Weber’s ethic of responsibility. We then identify several other morally bad things political figures do with hate speech, namely, legitimising, miseducating, lending authority to or normalising the practice and content of ordinary hate speech. And in the conclusion we address a possible objection from moral relativism.
