When Words Wound: Navigating the Fine Line between Free Expression and Hate Speech

Abstract

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic society, but its limits are often tested when speech crosses into hatred and incitement. This study examines how Malaysia regulates the boundary between free expression and hate speech within its constitutional and statutory framework, while situating the analysis against international standards. Using a qualitative approach, the research reviews constitutional provisions, statutes such as the Sedition Act 1948 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, and leading case law. Comparative perspectives from the United States, South Korea, and China are included to highlight alternative models of regulation. The findings show that Malaysia’s laws are broadly worded and inconsistently applied, creating uncertainty and a chilling effect on legitimate dissent. By contrast, international guidance such as the Rabat Plan of Action offers a more principled, harm-based approach. The study concludes that protecting free expression and curbing hate speech are not mutually exclusive, but require precise legal definitions, proportional enforcement, and stronger judicial safeguards.