Hate speech laws now disproportionately criminalize Muslim and dissenting speech.

Evidence

In the 1960s and 1970s, incitement laws were often used to target black activists whose views were regarded as unacceptable or dangerous. Today, those with unacceptable Muslim or Islamist views are more likely to be targets. In Britain, Muslims with unpalatable views, from Samina Malik (the so-called ‘lyrical terrorist’) to protestors against the Danish cartoons, who were jailed for up to six years for chants that ‘solicited murder’ and ‘incited racial hatred’, have felt the coercive impact of such laws (BBC News 2007a, 2007b). In France, after the Charlie Hebdo killings, the government organized a huge march through Paris in defence of free speech. It also used hate speech laws to criminalize those who dissented from the official view, from the antisemitic comedian Dieudonné to schoolchildren who refused to honour the slain cartoonists (Agence France-Presse 2015, Amnesty International 2015). Many countries now use hate speech laws to outlaw support for the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 684

Categorization

• XREF: Extends the Runnymede/Bleich/Halliday definitional debate: the coercive state use of ‘hatred’ narrows what counts as legitimate Muslim expression. — connects to: Policing speech obscures the line between offence, hatred, and violence. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 655; Anti-racists’ expansion of ‘hatred’ legitimizes state censorship of minorities — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 680
• CANDY: Schoolchildren jailed in France for refusing to honor the slain Charlie Hebdo cartoonists is a striking, tweetable detail.

Broader Connections

• Anti-racists’ expansion of ‘hatred’ legitimizes state censorship of minorities #corroborates (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 680