Laws against hate speech protect members of certain human groups. However, they do not offer protection to nonhuman animals. Using racist hate speech as our primary example, we explore the discrepancy between the legal response to hate speech targeting human groups and what might be called anti-animal or speciesist hate speech. We explore two sets of possible defences of this legal discrepancy drawn from the philosophical literature on hate speech—non-consequentialist and harm-based—and find both wanting. We thus conclude that, absent a compelling alternative argument, there is no in-principle reason to support the censure of racist hate speech but not the censure of speciesist hate speech.

中文翻译：

---

我们应该保护动物免受仇恨言论吗？

反对仇恨言论的法律保护某些人类群体的成员。但是，它们不为非人类动物提供保护。使用种族主义仇恨言论作为我们的主要例子，我们探讨了对针对人类群体的仇恨言论的法律反应与可能被称为反动物或种族歧视的仇恨言论之间的差异。我们从关于仇恨言论的哲学文献中探索了两种可能的对这种法律差异的辩护——非后果主义和基于伤害的——并发现两者都缺乏。因此，我们得出结论，如果没有令人信服的替代论点，原则上没有理由支持谴责种族主义仇恨言论，但不支持谴责种族歧视仇恨言论。