Free Speech Vs. Hate Speech
Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 11:38:17 AM PDT
"He who lives by fighting with an enemy has an interest in the preservation of the enemys’ life"
- Neitzsche
Hate speech has always been a very controversial issue in America. On one side, there are those who see hate speech as an extreme detriment to society that threatens social stability. On the other side, some claim that the 1st amendment is more importantly meant to protect the speech that everyone hates, not just the speech that everyone supports. Recently, a case involving two nations, 1000 hate messages and the internet has stirred up controversy over what the proper way is to deal with hate messages and speech:
"A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Calgary woman to stop posting hate messages against minority groups on a U.S.-based white supremacist website.
The commission fined Jessica Beaumont $1,500 for posting messages that hold Jews, gays, lesbians, Chinese, blacks, aboriginals and other non-whites up for hatred or contempt.
It also ordered Beaumont, 21, who once lived in British Columbia, to pay $3,000 in special compensation to a man about whom she posted hate messages.
``Ms. Beaumont is ordered to cease and desist from communicating or causing to be communicated any matter of the type contained in the messages that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt,'' wrote tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis."
The debate over hate speech vs. free speech is a very contested debate, even in the progressive community, however I come down on this debate much more sympathetic towards the free speech side of the debate. Advocates for free speech over hate speech restrictions usually make a case similar to what Katharine Gelber describes in her book "Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate":
"Free speech is a fundamental human right, an intrinsic good, and a cornerstone of liberal democracies. As a human right it ‘trumps’ mere individual or collective interests; the fact that speech might harm someone or some group’s interests is not of itself sufficient to justify restrictions on it. And since it is an intrinsic good its worth is not fully accounted for in terms of other goods that might be dependent on it, for example, knowledge or quality of life. Further, freedom of speech, and (relatedly) freedom of the press, are necessary conditions for a functioning democracy.
On the other hand, complete freedom of speech to say anything one wants to anyone and under all circumstances is not a morally sustainable option; the right to freedom of speech is not an absolute moral right, and nor is its intrinsic value an absolute value. For example, and as John Stuart Mill famously pointed out, a person does not have a moral right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded hall, if that would lead to panic and thereby to serious injury or even loss of life."
I did not arrive at my opinion on free vs hate speech from a social station of privilege. As a dark skinned, gay, atheist from an immigrant family, there are a lot of reasons why I should support Hate speech protections. I remain opposed to the criminalization of hate speech out of principle that criminalizing an act does not deal with the ingrained societal reasons for the speech in the first place. Hate speech laws are akin to sweeping the dust under the rug. The dust doesn’t disappear; rather it just is put out of our sight so that our consciousness can be assured of not remembering it. The bottom line never changes that the dust is still there, we just don’t see how dirty it is.
Some alternatives have been proposed in Gelber's "Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate":
"Where does hate speech fit into debate about free speech? Complete freedom of speech would enable a person or group to vilify another person or group. Complete freedom of speech would permit a person to produce the following utterances: ‘You black slut’, ‘You’re nothing but a coon’, ‘I’ve shot worse coons than you’. But people should not have to put up with hate speech of this kind. So some restrictions on hate speech are in order.
[the author] recommends against restricting freedom of speech, and in favour of (in effect) institutional empowerment of the victims of hate speech by way of a policy of ‘speaking back'. Speaking back involves such things as government funding for local newsletters to respond to episodes of hate speech in a specific community, or the development of an anti-racism program in a workplace in which hate speech has taken place."
In the LGBT community, each person must ask themselves on what part of the debate we fall under. We face thousands of different forms of hate speech by thousands of different people in our lifetimes. How can we create government, social and corporate policies that reduce those hate speech incidents without impugning beyond a certain degree on free speech? There will never be one answer from any community on this, since a community consists of diverse people with diverse beliefs, but as people within and outside of the LGBT community grapple with this perennial issue, we must look into our own struggle to understand how important it is to protect unpopular points of views that go against majority beliefs. As a community we are used to having our most pressing civil rights concerns being viewed negatively by the heterosexual and genderstraight majority.
It takes a true progressive to allow the greatest amount of free speech possible. Banning speech that most fair-minded people abhor does nothing else but radicalize and reinvigorate the group that produces the hating. In the quote that this diary started with: "He who lives by fighting with an enemy has an interest in the preservation of the enemys’ life". We cannot live our lives in response to these people who spout such hatred. Our attention only fuels copycats. We must understand that hate speech is ever present and work our hardest to educate people that such speech is preposterous. Banning such speech does nothing but sweep the problem under the rug. Punishing it only gives those select few bigots a reason to feel vindicated in their beliefs even further.
Permalink | 28 comments