What Is Hate Speech? Definitions Used by Law and Platforms

There is no single, universally accepted definition of hate speech. The United Nations, national legal systems and online platforms each use their own wording, and they draw the lines in different places. What most definitions share is a focus on expression that attacks or demeans people because of a group they belong to, such as race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sex or disability.

This page sets out how some of the main definitions work, why they differ and what the terms usually mean. It is general information, not legal advice.

A working definition from the United Nations

The UN’s strategy on hate speech describes it as communication in speech, writing or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language about a person or group on the basis of who they are, including religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or another identity factor. The UN has also noted that no international legal definition exists, and that the description is meant as a working tool for its own work. See the UN’s explanation of hate speech.

Two features are worth noticing. The definition is about who is targeted, not about whether an idea is offensive. And it covers more than words: images, gestures and conduct can be included.

Protected characteristics

Many definitions list “protected characteristics” or “protected attributes”. The list varies by country and platform, but often includes:

• race, color and ethnic or national origin
• religion or belief
• sex and gender identity
• sexual orientation
• disability
• age or serious illness in some systems

The reason for a list is practical. It lets laws and policies cover attacks on groups that have historically faced discrimination, without banning all insulting language.

How the law treats it

Legal approaches differ widely between countries.

International law

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says in Article 20(2) that advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should be prohibited by law. Other treaties address racial discrimination in similar terms. States apply these provisions in different ways.

United States

The First Amendment protects a great deal of speech, including offensive speech. U.S. courts have held that there is no general “hate speech” exception to free-speech protection. Speech can still be unlawful in narrower categories, such as true threats, harassment, and incitement to imminent lawless action, a standard set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

United Kingdom

Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, as later amended, makes it an offense to stir up hatred on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation, subject to conditions about intent and context. Other offenses address threatening or abusive behavior and hate-motivated crimes.

These examples show a spectrum, from systems that regulate fairly narrowly to those that place more limits on expression. Anyone who needs to know what applies in a specific place should check the official legislation or ask a qualified lawyer.

How online platforms define it

Large platforms publish their own rules, called community standards or content policies. They usually:

• prohibit direct attacks on people based on listed protected characteristics
• address dehumanizing comparisons, calls for exclusion or harm, and slurs
• allow some content for education, news reporting or counter-speech, with context

Because platforms are private services, their rules can be stricter than the law in a given country. Enforcement can be automated, reviewed by people, or both, and the rules change over time, so the current policy page of each service is the best reference.

Why the term is contested

Hate speech is a topic on which reasonable people disagree. Common points of debate include:

• Breadth. Some argue that broad definitions risk covering legitimate criticism or satire. Others argue that narrow definitions leave real harms unaddressed.
• Intent versus effect. Does the speaker’s intent matter, or the impact on the target?
• Context. The same words can be a slur, a quotation in a news report or a term reclaimed by a community.
• Who decides. Courts, regulators or companies may each draw the line differently.

Different countries have reached different balances, and the debate continues in courts, legislatures and research.

Frequently asked questions

Is hate speech illegal everywhere?

No. Some countries criminalize certain forms of it, others protect most of it and regulate only threats, incitement or harassment. Check the law that applies where you are.

Is offensive speech the same as hate speech?

Not necessarily. Many definitions focus on attacks against people based on group identity, rather than on whether something is rude or upsetting.

What can a person do when they see it online?

Platforms offer reporting tools, and the page on responding to hateful rhetoric online outlines general approaches.

For the wider context of the site, see the home page.