PHIL276 Language in Society
offensive , whilst the term ‘ African American ’ is not , because of the distinct subjective emotions that arise from the use of the epithet . In the instance of the epithet , it gets its negative colouring due to the fact that it is attached to the institution of slavery , as a “[ reference to ] the dark skin of Africans ” ( Rahman , 2011 , p . 142 ).
Therefore , when a Black person hears the term ‘ n *** er ’ hurled at them by a racist with the intent of hurting and derogating the Black listener or listeners , it is successful in causing offence , due to the dehumanising negative historical associations connected to the epithet . This means that the phrases “ Barack Obama is a n *** er ” and “ Barack Obama is an African American ” are both , in the Fregean framework , true statements , since Barack Obama is African American . The former phrase , however , is offensive due to the negative colouring inferred in the listener ’ s mind by the use of the racial epithet , which links Obama ’ s ethnic background to the institution of slavery , which is demeaning to Obama . Understanding racial epithets in this way provides a subjective approach to slurs , as it assumes that the offensiveness of racial slurs is connected with the intent of the speaker , as well as the listener ’ s individual mental response to the slur , rather than
SOTA Anthology 19 / 20
taking a much more intuitive and semantically-focused approach , as prohibitionists do for example ( Anderson and Lepore , 2013 ).
Applying Frege ’ s notion of colouring to an understanding of racial epithets demonstrates that the use of epithets causes harm due to the hurtful ideas attached to the epithets , but what measures should then be taken to prevent harm from racist hate speech ? Whilst it would be beyond the scope of this essay to outline a full legal case for prohibiting epithets , having a legal framework to understand slurs is another key adequacy condition which should be met by a philosophy of epithets . This is because of the harm and offence that slurs cause both socially and politically , as well as the increasing focus on freedom of speech and need for a philosophical approach to help us understand how we ought to legislate racist language in society . John Stuart Mill in ‘ On Liberty ’ argues that language should be restricted only in cases of incitement , and in instances when the use of language risks harming the rights of others , such as when the use of speech is delivered to directly encourage violence , for instance directing an “ excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer ” ( Mill , [ 1859 ] 2010 , p .