Hate Speech is Free Speech, Let's Talk About It

“For all the talk of using free speech responsibly, the real consequence of the demand for censorship is to moderate the responsibility of individuals for their actions.” – Hate

On January 8^, 2021, the President of the United States was permanently suspended from Twitter for questioning the results of the 2020 election and the ensuing January 6 riots at the Capitol.  Then, once the Biden Administration was sworn in, just weeks later, they, too, began their own censorship demands of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to remove conservatives from their platforms, often over content that was true but didn’t support prevailing narratives.  Many were centered around COVID truths and falsehoods, while the administration attempted to sell its COVID vaccine to an increasingly suspicious citizenry.  The freedom to speak in America is the freedom to not only express one’s own ideas and information but also to seek the truth about government propaganda and policies. 

Many countries currently curtail speech that is merely hurtful or offensive.  The United States, however, has jealously protected such speech with the most permissive free speech guarantees anywhere in the world.  Backed by the First Amendment, the Founders wrote that Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.  That includes not only offensive ideas, the burning of the American flag, but also hate speech.  Mostly, the Federalist Papers reveal that the Founders wanted Americans to have the ability to critique their government and hold those in power accountable, without fear of repercussion. 

In Nadine Strossen’s 2018 book, “Hate, Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship”, Strossen details the history of free speech, along with countries that have tried to control it, and how any attempt to shut down speech harms freedom.  It is only in rare situations where there is defamation, fraud, or when harm is imminent that the government can act to suppress one’s speech. 

In the 1800s, the old children's rhyme, where “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me”, promised that while physical violence could harm, words should not be treated the same.  Today, however, we are told that words are violence, that verbal expressions of dissent can cause irreparable harm.  What used to cause hurt feelings now causes lasting harm. 

Such speech, however, is difficult to define.  When hate speech laws have been drawn, they are often ambiguous and overbroad, making them unenforceable.  Attempts to narrow their reach are often met with more censorship by targeting dissenting voices and minority groups, including equal rights movements.  Hate speech laws regularly target speech that one particular group finds offensive, even though such laws rarely provide the desired remedy; they don’t lower the amount of discrimination or violence.  Worst, they can drive discrimination and biases underground.  Unsurprisingly, many people who advocate for hate speech laws like to use their own hateful words: Hitler, Nazi, Fascism, Racist.

Censorship is impossible in a deeply divided nation, when those in power are the ones who choose how hate speech is defined.  The prevalence of social media also makes hate speech laws more difficult to enforce by making it impossible to erase such speech from platforms. 

All too often, factual statements are penalized, leading to forced conformity and compliance.  For example, hate speech laws in the UK are aimed at offensive and menacing speech, in an attempt to silence dissent.  Today, there are 30 arrests per day for offensive social media posts, leading to fines or even imprisonment.  Dissenters of the UK rape scandal, where 1400 girls, some as young as age 11, were sexually assaulted or raped by mostly Pakistani men, were particularly targeted for voicing their concerns.   As such, leaders are more likely to jail the truth tellers, while the criminals run free.

It is often said that more speech is the best solution to hate speech.  Counter speech can empower marginalized people by providing education for those who would make slurs towards people who are different.  Persuasion is always preferable to outright bans.  Making certain words socially unacceptable by banishing the speaker is also much more powerful.  Any form of censorship leads to a loss of debate, where critical thinking and rational discourse are necessary for progress.  If voices can be silenced, then soon no one will be able to speak. 

Filed under words are violence, are college campuses, which have often been both a lab for hate speech and protests.  Most campuses, in fact, censor speech and behavior with hate speech codes.  Such codes ban speech that inflicts distress or may create a hostile environment.  A majority of college students oppose speakers who hold opposing viewpoints, and as a result, most students self-censor their own thoughts and ideas.  Charlie Kirk, who was recently assassinated for bringing much-needed debate to campuses, provided the rare debate occurring in many universities, especially the Ivy League.  

The Founders wanted Americans to have the freedom to question prevailing cultural and political narratives.  To preserve and protect such liberty, the First Amendment guaranteed the freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, a free press, and the freedom to petition the government.