It is often difficult to unambiguously characterize hate speech as dangerous or problematic speech which causes the violation of rights or even violence. Before making a judgment, one must consider both the legal and institutional as well as the political and socio-linguistic context. The article attempts to frame the issue of hate speech in the broader perspective of language and its environment. It presents the expert (legal, philosophical and sociological) understanding of hate speech in Slovenia, and then introduces concepts of problematic and dangerous speech which are connected with analyses of collective violence and evaluate dangerous speech which is not directly hateful. This is substantiated with Victor Klemperer’s insights about the gradual emergence of the language of the third Reich. Klemperer’s ”broad” definition of speech should be used as the basis for the understanding of problematic speech, focusing on the entirety of public life; not just hateful words or sentences but also »innocent« advertisements, political speeches, judicial verdicts, policy decisions, laws, bills, etc. On this basis, the article points to three types of problematic and dangerous speech that are found in our immediate, present-day surroundings.
