모든 더러운 말들: 증오발언 규제론 및 규제반대론 검토

The article aims to examine arguments for and against hate speech regulation and to present a conceptual framework for hate speech regulation in line with theoretical understandings as examined. We argue against criminal punishment of hate speech not for the reason of ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the regulation. Rather, criminalization of hate speech is incongruent with the very democratic principle of self-governance. While a policy regulating hate speech can set rules of civility that members of a democratic society agree to live by, it cannot exist as a form of punitive measures that individuals or groups ask the government to enforce. Citizens can and should voluntarily adopt rules for regulating extreme speech at each sphere of civil society. We believe it is desirable for citizens in civil domains such as associations, work places, schools and religious organizations to adopt a set of rules to regulate their own extreme speech through voluntary initiatives and legitimate procedures. The government may enact comprehensive anti-discriminatory laws and introduce provisions of weighted penalty for hate crimes to guide these initiatives. The idea is that citizens should adopt regulations that protect the weak and social minorities not by restricting but by actively exercising freedom of speech to strengthen democracy. Citizens can thus regulate themselves; They can initiate campaigns to raise public awareness regarding human rights violations in the communities they belong to, strike back against those who express hatred against the weak and social minorities, and engage in public discourse to adopt a rule to regulate their own discourse. However, citizens should not ask the government to intervene in the process of public opinion formation. The nation we aspire to be is the one equipped with both democratic institutions and active democratic citizenship, that is, a nation of ‘strong democracy.’