Most depressing poll of the year? A majority of Democrats and 37% of Republicans say they favor banning so-called hate speech, which would squarely contradict the free speech jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court and thus would implicitly at least call for rolling back the First Amendment to the Constitution. The YouGov numbers favoring such a ban have risen, perhaps influenced by confusion or worse in elite journalistic and academic circles [Edward Morrissey/Fiscal Times, Charles Cooke]
As Ken at Popehat notes in a piece on censors’ tropes: “In the US, ‘hate speech’ is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.” Related on recent controversies: Paul Berman, Tablet (“it was the Charlie staffers, and not Marine le Pen, whose arrival in New York stirred a protest.”); Art Spiegelman, Time; Mark Steyn (“‘There Is No More Molly.’ Or Luz.”); Erik Wemple, Washington Post (American media’s “crouch of cowardice and rationalization” after Garland attack).
More from commenter DensityDuck:
Given the modern attitude of “anything I don’t like should be illegal”, this isn’t surprising.
When Bradbury wrote “Fahrenheit 451?, he wasn’t suggesting that the government would censor ideas it didn’t like; in his story, it was the people themselves who called for censorship of bad, scary, offensive ideas. Someone who writes of microaggressions and triggers and hate speech would be the bad guys in F451.
18 Comments
This always reminds me of the DC employee who was fired for saying “niggardly”. He was later rehired.
And the employee in Farmers Branch TX who was reprimanded when he used the phrase “bean counter” in a discussion about the FB action to keep illegal immigrants from renting. He was using it in the common meaning of silly counting of minutiae.
If I had to guess, I would say that a plurality or a majority has always favored banning whatever flavor speech is out of style at the moment.
The bluenoses will always be with us.
Given the modern attitude of “anything I don’t like should be illegal”, this isn’t surprising.
When Bradbury wrote “Fahrenheit 451”, he wasn’t suggesting that the government would censor ideas it didn’t like; in his story, it was the people themselves who called for censorship of bad, scary, offensive ideas. Someone who writes of microaggressions and triggers and hate speech would be the bad guys in F451.
The problem is, who shall define “hate speech”.?
If the definition of “hate speech” were left to me, and only to me, then I might agree that banning hate speech could be a good thing.
Only I doubt most of you would trust me with that power.
Well, I don’t trust YOU.
And I especially don’t trust a government – mine, yours, anyone’s – to define “hate speech”.
I end up pretty much where we are today: “government shall make no law”.
Find 10 normal people in support of censoring “hate” speech and you’ll find 10 normal people who can’t agree on what that is, excepting that only other people do it.
Might be instructive to run a poll where real-world examples of such speech are presented instead of just a generic question begging projection. Then report on all the examples that someone from the pro-speech-control camp would see censored. Present that list to the public, then ask the generic question again.
It’d be easier than actually going down the censors’ rat-hole for real.
You can probably get more Republicans (full disclosure: I’m a Republican, but not a stupid one) to support bans on “hate speech” if you frame the question differently. It’s foolish Republicans who try to ban flag desecration, protests at military funerals, etc. (I’m not saying these things are in good taste–it’s just that it’s not productive to try to ban them in a free society.)
HOW do you define “Hate Speech”? Who will make that decision?
Hate speech is when you suborn others to do already illegal things, especially capital crime. Getting this banned is a good thing, because if you allow it, you limit the freedom of the people the hate speech is directed at. Anything else should not be limited. You have to live to the fact that some people don’t like you and say that in public.
E., that definition is almost exactly what “fighting words” are, which are not protected. The distinction is real. Hate speech *cannot* be suborning of violence, otherwise (in the status quo) it loses its protection. Thus, a new (and separate) ban on hate speech would also have to maintain the distinction on violence and thus define hate speech in a way that it isn’t inciting violence.
The whole purpose of the first amendment is to protect speech unpopular with the majority (or plurality) of Americans.
Is labeling some comment ‘hate speech’ hate speech?
yes, it is speech that they hate so much that they want to commit an act of violence against those who speak. Now who in the contemporary world does that sound like? Cartoon fans perhaps? 😉
If the USSC can be packed with anti-First-Amendment zombies, among the first in line for bans on speech that makes them feel uncomfortable (aka “hate speech”) will be police unions.
It is long time since I last time read the defense of someone rights to freely talk on the grounds of it being a good policy. Literally all defenses were about whether whatever falls into first amendment or whether amendment applies to given institution.
None of them was about whether punishing free expression is a bad/good policy or idea in the first place. It is as if most thinkers generally accepted that suppressing opinions or expressions is generally neat policy when you have possibility to implement it.
It is not much of surprise then that “it is good policy anyway” logic gets applied to situations where it finally breaks that amendment. Nobody heard the defense of free speech idea people itself in a long time.
If the law is the only reason why not to do x, then people start to ponder whether the law itself is a good idea.
Idiotic. “Hate Speech” IS free speech. There is no line.
Thank you for standing up for TRUTH!!
How is this different than yelling Fire! in a public place? That’s speech but it’s limited. Or how is it different than labeling something pornographic or obscene? The “we know it when we see it” approach? Each instance of hate speech will have to be done on a case by case basis because it’s the context of the interaction that determines whether something is hate speech – not necessarily the words used.
[…] (links here and here), as well as dangers to American public support for free speech (links here and […]