Civic Issue #4: The Intersection of Free Speech and Hate Speech
As the social landscape in America has aged, undergone a myriad of changes, and been subject to different interpretations, so have many of the tenets and norms upon which this landscape was formed. Perhaps one of the most critical of these tenets and norms is free speech, outlined in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. What makes free speech so important is the idea that speech generates new ideas, invites criticism, and allows for the unadulterated exchange of ideas between at least two entities. These processes allow for members of a society to use their voice in order to refine and create the best version of that society possible.
That’s not saying free speech does not curtail the occurrence of conflict. As a matter of fact, it is rather the opposite: it encourages it. Free speech makes certain that every individual has the ability to voice their own authentic opinions and not be compelled by the state to speak or act in a certain way. In other words, you see more public, verbal conflict in an environment where free speech and open dialogue are encouraged, in stark contrast to an authoritarian government where news, social media, and shared opinions are filtered and suppressed by the regime. The George W. Bush Presidential Center goes so far as to say that “[authoritarian regimes] believe not only that their monolithic governments should have their own voice but also that theirs should be the only voice,” and those that manage to slip through the cracks are “dealt with harshly.”
I mentioned that many of the leading tenets in America have shifted, including that of free speech. But what does that mean exactly? I would argue that, in light of the social change we have seen over the past one hundred years (from suffrage to a rise in racial equality), many in the contemporary American society have organized efforts to criminalize hate speech. Well, what is hate speech and how does it compare with free speech? And herein lies the central issue of today’s blog post.
Hate speech is defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as “speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others.” It could also be described as a subset of free speech wherein the speech is prejudicial and aimed towards a certain protected class. I mentioned above that many people have launched efforts to make hate speech illegal due to its negative, solely-detrimental nature. However, these efforts have not come without counter-efforts. Why? The contention with the topic of hate speech has to do largely with the argument involving to what extent the government should be involved in regulating free speech.
There are generally two main perspectives in the hate speech argument, but before I delve into these lines of reasoning, I want to point out beliefs regarding hate speech or free speech can (and do) transcend party and ideological lines. However, for the sake of clarity in this blog post, I will be exploring the two stereotypically-linked viewpoints to the progressive and traditional movements in our society and how they view the topic of “hate speech.”
The progressive wing of our society is more likely to stand in support of criminalizing hate speech. Progressive platforms in the United State stand for championing the rights of minorities, protected classes, workers, and so on – in short, they support the ideals and practice “social reform,” as summed up by the Oxford Dictionary when defining the term “progressivism.” It reasonably follows that these social progressives would be against the concept of hate speech and seek to have the practice of such an action criminalized. (Refer to the graph that follows this explanation, which was recorded by Hidden Tribes.)
A general progressive argument, laid out by author and philosopher Jeremy Waldron, ensures that “objects of hate speech are deprived of the assurance that the society regards them as people of equal dignity” (New York Times). In other words, the progressive camp is apt to believe that hateful speech incites violence against those that need protection and undermines the efforts of seeking out the social progress that they believe they deserve.
Donald Trump’s name is often invoked in the conversation of hate speech, because he has often been accused of it himself or emboldening others to perform it. His presidency has been attributed, by progressives, to a rise in hate speech and bigotry, which has played a role in the national conversation the issue. In sum, hate speech is perceived by progressives as an enemy to the societal advancement they believe is long overdue.
Speaking generally, the traditional side of this argument holds the position that hate speech is not a real phenomenon, at least not one that can be addressed legally. Everyone can reasonably agree on the fact that it is true that people say hateful things; “anti-criminalization of free speech” proponents don’t inherently believe that hate speech is a good or respectful thing. Rather, they believe that the government should not have a say in what things can and cannot be said by and to others. In an excerpt form the Encyclopedia Britannica, the general position of this belief is better fleshed out: “Although those who take that position [of criminalizing hate speech] acknowledge the odious nature of the messages of hate speech, they maintain that state censorship is a cure that causes more harm than the disease of bigoted expression.”
It is believed by these more traditional Americans that much more damage can be done by opening the door to limiting speech than by the ugly things that espoused through hate speech itself. This is due to the fact that many people are quick to qualify the expression of political opinions as hate speech. For example, some that do not believe in transgenderism have been accused of communicating hate speech by sharing that belief. (Refer to the Youtube video below for one such example.)
The concern with criminalizing hate speech in this political context is that it could set a dangerous precedent that could allow the government to limit opposition speech if it was deemed hate speech, therein reinforcing the norms of an authoritative government. Traditional Americans take issue with the notion that there’s is often a blurred between hate speech and speech one doesn’t like, making day-to-day political debates much more dangerous. Hate speech, in conclusion, is perceived by more traditional Americans as gross speech, but speech that should not be shut down and instead met with more speech in return.
My take on the issue definitely leans one direction. I want to begin by saying that I think hate speech is grotesque. Nobody should be verbally maligned simply because they belong to a specific group. But when actual hate speech does occur, I don’t think the speaker should face punitive measures. I believe that, as was described on the traditional side of the argument, people that say hateful things should be met with more discussion. The reasons why they are wrong should be explained to them instead of those ideas being shut down, which may have a backfire effect anyways, pushing them closer to those beliefs.
I also believe that we need to do better in terms of locating actual hate speech, as opposed to crying “hate speech” when we hear things we don’t like. Hate speech has a clear motive – to spread hatred. We must use judgement when determining what things are truly hateful.
The president of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen, shares these sentiments. In an interview with NPR, she explained, “The most effective way to counter the potential negative effects of hate speech…is not through censorship, but rather through more speech.” Her take is that speech should be discouraged through words and not by being shut down; open dialogue allows for more pointed understandings of why someone is wrong or not justified.
I think Americans of today should focus on two things:
- Don’t spread hatred. It does much more harm than good in this country. It only seeks to divide, when, as Americans, we’re supposed to come together. Think before you speak.
- Don’t tell someone to stop saying hateful things once they’ve started. Instead, challenge them. Explain your positions or other positions. Use your freedom of speech to your advantage instead of curbing someone else’s.
Leave a Reply