The Slippery Slope: When To Be Concerned?

The slippery slope argument is often used when discussing any sort of change of policy and their consequences. In this article, I will discuss two examples of policies where the slippery slope argument is used and why one is more prone to be true.

These are the legalisation of consensual adult prostitution, and hate speech legislation.

Firstly, let’s look at the goal that policies seek to achieve. For the legalisation of consensual adult prostitution, the goal is to simply legalise it. Neither a child prostitute nor a victim of trafficking falls within this definition. The goal is objective, defined and has no room for interpretation. There is an established end goal.

Hate speech legislation, on the other hand, seeks to outlaw speech that is “hateful” towards certain groups within society. Whatever the intentions, the goal is subjective, undefined, and there is a lot of room for interpretation.

If you ask different people what they consider to be hateful, you will get different answers. And so, who decides what is considered hate speech? What is hate speech? Is hateful intent required or does the speech merely need to be offensive to some person or a committee of people?

In some jurisdictions, they don’t require proof that anyone felt threatened or offended by the supposed hate speech to get a conviction. When a victim is required, how does someone even defend themselves? Offence is taken; it’s not like you can argue that someone isn’t feeling a certain way. Is the victim at least expected to be a ‘reasonable person’?

Are there any safeguards? Who does it apply to and when? The UK government tried to charge a black woman for using the n-word, but relented after there was obvious backlash.

Where does it apply? Only in public, or does the government take an interest in your private conversations? Will the government try and expand its jurisdiction beyond its borders? Is there any carve out for speech of a political nature? Is saying they want less immigration hateful? Or a discussion about the effect of certain religions within society? What about offensive satire? Would Count Dankula teaching his dog to do a Nazi salute as a joke be hate speech?

And which groups are considered protected, which is decided by legislators and hence is a political decision? Is it limited to characteristics people cannot control such a race, sexuality and disability? Or are personal decisions such as religion involved? Will police be included, even though they are not an oppressed group? Some states in the US consider police to be a protected group under their hate crime legislation.

If occupations are included, would it be illegal to discuss harm caused by historically repressive occupations such as psychiatrists (or even politicians)? Will such people suddenly be free from criticism and accountability? Will criticising countries and their governments be illegal?

The point is, my first example seeks to expand individual liberty while the other seeks to restrict an essential liberty. The legalisation of prostitution expands the rights of consenting adults and eliminates a victimless crime. It reduces the power of the government to intervene in business and personal matters.

Hate speech legislation increases government power and erodes an essential liberty. It invites further legislation that erodes that liberty. Freedom of expression is black and white - you either have it or you don’t.

An important consideration is always whether a government could use a law to repress people and their rights. Legalising consensual adult prostitution does nothing to expand government power and is not something that can be exploited to expand government power or oppress the populace.

Hate speech legislation significantly increases government power by eroding freedom of expression. The subjective nature of hate speech legislation gives the government a lot of power to target people and limit public discussion of specific issues. Even people who clearly are not hateful can be targeted.

Hate speech legislation is often selectively enforced against people and groups that the government does not like, and to censor information deemed politically incorrect. Ironically, it can even be used to target people based on race and religion.

For example, it is not uncommon in Russia for people who even mildly offend local Christian authorities to be persecuted under hate speech legislation. This includes 19 year old Daniil Markin, who compared a Game of Thrones character to Jesus – he was added to a list of terrorists and extremists. In Muslim majority Indonesia, ex Muslim Christian convert Mohummed Kace was sentenced to 10 years for blasphemy for criticising his former religion in a video.

Hate speech legislation also leads to the erosion of other rights such as privacy, as authorities demand greater powers of mass surveillance to detect ‘hate speech’ expressed through mail, over the internet in private internet chat rooms, via text and in private conversations.

Policies that are subjective, undefined and leave room for interpretation or constant expansion deserve greater scrutiny as these are the ones that become slippery slopes. Especially when such policies affect essential liberties, expand government power and invite government exploitation.