There is an aspect of the hate speech debate that tends to rest on common, yet unstated, assumptions, and that has profound implications for the progress of the debate and for the perceived dichotomous relationship between responding to the problem of hate speech and protecting freedom of expression. The “free speech versus hate speech” debate is infused by a conception of counterspeech that is, I will argue, unnecessarily narrow. Further, it is one that contributes to an unhelpful and ultimately futile polarization of positions with regard to what states, or governments, or communities ought to do in response to the problem of hate speech.

I will outline the nature and the implications of this shared conception for the hate speech debate both at a policy and a theoretical level. I will then present an argument for an alternative conception. This alternative is based on a reconceptualization of counterspeech located within Martha Nussbaum's capabilities theory, and it has significant implications for ideas about an appropriate response to speech that is perceived as harmful. I will make a seven-step argument for a new type of policy, one that is able to overcome the difficulties of the often unrecognized, but shared, dominant assumptions about counterspeech in the current debate.