Well! You just introduced me to a whole new concept! I had never heard of "counterspeech" before this, so I had to do some research.
I found the following excerpt at this web site: Counterspeech 2000: A new look at the old remedy for "bad" speech | Brigham Young University Law Review | Find Articles at BNET
And here is the other term:At the heart of the counterspeech doctrine is the principle, as Laurence Tribe writes, that "whenever `more speech' could eliminate a feared injury, more speech is the constitutionally-mandated remedy." Rather than censor allegedly harmful speech and thereby risk violating the First Amendment protection of expression, or file a lawsuit that threatens to punish speech perceived as harmful, the preferred remedy is to add more speech to the metaphorical marketplace of ideas.
The relationship between these two ideas is that if Person A uses hate speech toward Person B, the solution is not to silence or punish Person A, but rather to use counterspeech - words in support of Person B, denouncing Person A - to correct or combat the hate. This would protect Person A's right to free speech, which is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This position has been adopted by many anti-hate organizations in the U.S.hate speech (legal definition ) n. Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification. (hate speech - Legal Definition)[NB: I find it interesting that this definition says "not protected by the First Amendment", because in fact it is protected! This is a complicated, ongoing legal controversy here in the U.S., and the Supreme Court is ruling this year on a case related to the topic.]
I hope others will contribute to this interesting topic! Do you think it is possible to combat hate speech with counterspeech,or should there be laws, jail time, or other punishments?