In this article, the author suggests that hate speech should be criminalized if it causes tangible

harm to someone or their property. Numao critiques two separate articles that examined both
sides of the hate speech legislation debate, both based on philosopher John Locke’s work.
Numao examines both articles in detail and suggests that while both articles provide evidence of
Locke being pro and anti-hate speech legislation, that this evidence is being somewhat
embellished by the writers to support a false narrative. Numao instead suggests a third idea in his
article, but with a different interpretation of the evidence provided. This third approach suggests
that there needs to be evidence of a recognizable crime being committed to charge someone,
whether incited by hate speech or not. Numao uses several pieces written by Locke, while noting
the societal difference between the 17th century and today, that can be used to prove that Locke
walked the line between legislation and freedom of speech, and supported tangible evidence of
crime rather than someone’s feelings about another person which can be subjective. J.K Numao
is an associate PhD professor of foreign language and liberal arts at the University of Keio in
Japan and seems to have a well formatted and supported approach to hate speech legislation.
Given my interest in freedom of speech and expression, Numao’s approach which calls for solid
evidence of crimes being committed to be able to charge someone legally provides an intelligent
compromise between pro-legislation and pro-freedom of expression [1].

References

[1] J. Numao, "Locke and Hate Speech Law: A Critical Review," Locke Studies , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 173-96,
2017.