The American Bar Association says that hate speech is “speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.”
The OED defines satire as “The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.”
The major difference between these two definitions is that satire has a purpose – to “expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices.” Hate speech does not have a purpose beyond offending, threatening or insulting.
France attempts to prohibit hate speech by penal code and press laws, deeming unlawful public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or group on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. Several publications, however, have been acquitted of charges of hate speech over the last several years, including at least one against Charlie Hebdo.
It is important to remember the difference between hate speech and satire. In the words of author Michael Coren, “Cartoons are supposed to be rude or offensive. Satire, from the Greeks to Swift and Defoe to the Soviet dissident writers to modern French magazines, has to provoke. Otherwise it’s safe and pointless. Genuine liberalism is not about allowing that with which you agree; it is about tolerating that which makes you extremely angry.”