The Dubula I'bhunu ruling

My 2c on what I believe is a terrible flaw in Judge Lamont's Dubula I'bhunu ruling.

The judgement seems to argue that:

* Hate speech incites violence.
* We evaluate whether it is hate speech by considering how people interpret the words.
* Words can be interpreted differently based on context and background, so who the words are said to is significant.
* Although Dubula I'bhunu was sung primarily in political rally contexts, where the bulk of listeners were familiar with it's struggle context, it was also broadcast to all South Africans, who may not all interpret it in the same way.
* We therefore need to consider how it would be interpreted by all South Africans.
* Given how the song was interpreted in the media, the violent "kill the boers" interpretation was out there in the public space.

I think all of that is fine. But then Judge Lamont speaks about how sufficient people would interpret it as killing boers (especially given that it was translated that way in the media) that it can be considered hate speech.

But wait.

It seems to me that to be considered hate speech, the people interpreting it as "kill the boers" would actually have to be incited to kill boers.

But that is not the case, I believe. The people who interpret it as "kill the boers" are people who are afraid that OTHERS might kill the boers.

So... it seems to me that even if this song is legitimately interpreted in two different ways, it is not incitement to violence, as those who interpret it as violent (predominantly white SAfricans) are not being incited to violence.

This is the fatal flaw in his argument, in my opinion.

He even noted that no violence could be linked to this song.

There is no incitement to violence, hence there is no hate speech.

#myopinion