Hate speech is free speech, and yes, it should be. The first amendment doesn’t care about your feelings. Its purpose is to protect the individuals’ right to express themselves without fear of government oppression.
In This Argument…
- Why hate speech should be considered free speech
- How censoring hate speech can be a slippery slope
- Real examples of many countries like Germany and Australia that show how hate speech laws in action
- Free speech VS incitement of violence
Table of Contents
The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment not only protects individuals’ freedom of speech from government overreach, it also encourages civil discourse which is essential to an open society.
Still, many far-left activists and social justice warriors see hate speech not as free speech, but as something that inflicts harm. To them, hate speech should not be considered free speech. While well-intention, this view is extremely destructive to a society, especially one that prides itself on personal freedom.
Let’s examine why hate speech is actually free speech, the conservative argument against the pro-censorship stance on hate speech and the conservative response, and real examples of speech restrictions in the world today. But first, we need to define hate speech.
What Is Hate Speech?
Merriam-Webster defines hate speech as “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people,” and many popular dictionaries hold similar definitions. This includes spoken language, writing, or gesture that may express hatred of a particular group of people.
At first thought, this may seem contrary to American values and freedoms, and that it should not be allowed in American society. But it actually should be allowed. Why?
Why Hate Speech Is Free Speech
The first and most important argument of hate speech being free speech is about defining hate. Merriam-Webster defines hate as “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.” This still leaves a gap for self or government definition and brings up the most obvious question of, “who defines hate?” This is the root of the problem.
According to Jordan Peterson, a well-known Canadian psychologist and author, hate in this case is defined by “those people that you least want to have define it.” This means that those tasked with defining hate speech are often the people that restrict speech or ideas that they disagree with or are offended by. The reason for this is that practical people would not partake in regulation because they understand the importance of free speech in fostering open dialogue and debate.
Restricting speech can be an extremely slippery slope which only leads to more censorship, ultimately undermining free expression and open discourse. In order for a free society to exist, free and open discourse must be allowed so that individuals can change society for the better. The problem with restricting hate speech is that today it might ban racial slurs; tomorrow it could ban criticism of certain ideologies, religious beliefs, or political views that are found offensive. Without freedom of speech, the foundation of a democratic society is weakened, and the potential for authoritarian control grows.
Furthermore, if the government is able to censor any speech that is contrary to their view, then how are individuals able to challenge the status quo, communicate, and even think? If one cannot challenge the government through speech, then they live in a society where dissent is suppressed, individual freedoms are compromised, and the government holds unchecked power. If one cannot effectively communicate thought, then why think? Additionally, if one does not have the words to think, then how can one even think?
George Orwell’s 1984 shows the dangers of controlling speech by demonstrating how it stops people from questioning the government and limits their ability to think freely. In a society like this, individuals are unable to challenge authority or imagine a different reality.
Although this overview should be sufficient reason to oppose the regulation of hate speech, there are still arguments in favor of government regulation.
Argument for Censorship of Hate Speech – And the Conservative Response
- “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence.” This quote comes from a New York Times op-ed called “When is speech violence?”, by Lisa Feldman Barrett. In the article, Barrett has completely taken an intellectual leap, probably without realizing it. If speech creates stress in an individual and then that individual is harmed, nearly any form of speech could be labeled as hateful or harmful, entirely depending on the emotional state of the individual. Then, the most fragile individuals in society get to regulate what others say. There may be no perfect solution to the problem, but it is certainly not regulation. In a society where hate speech is regulated, truth cannot survive if it is policed by personal feelings. Remember, truth can also be harmful.
- When Speech Is Not Useful: Barrett also argues that Milo Yiannopoulos, a well-known conservative and controversial speaker, should not be allowed to speak at schools because there is “nothing to be gained from debating him” as he offers “something noxious, a campaign of abuse.” But this belief allows subjective judgements about the value of speech to determine who is allowed to even speak at all. While Barrett didn’t suggest state censorship, this argument puts the power of regulation in the hands of institutions and government and can usher in authoritative rule. To counter this argument, one needs only to ask this question: ‘”Would it be just for Nazi Germany to ban a Jewish speaker by claiming that there is “nothing to be gained from debating?”‘
- Hate Speech Can Lead to Violence or Genocide: Those in favor of censoring hate speech often push the idea that allowing hate speech can lead to violence or genocide against a certain people group. Yes, forms of hate speech can lead to violence, but there is a clear distinction between free speech and incitement of violence. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that speech can only be restricted when it poses a clear and present danger or is intended to incite imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). This is not free speech. Also, while it’s true that hate speech has been used to dehumanize a group of people, most hateful or offensive speech in free societies does not result in physical harm, especially when it’s countered by open debate, public condemnation, and legal protections against actual incitement. Ultimately, the key distinction is that speech that expresses hate is not the same as speech that directly incites violence.
Real Examples of Hate Speech Regulation – Censorship In Action
- A CBS article highlights that German authorities conducted a pre-dawn raid on a suspect’s apartment for because the individual was suspected of posting a racist cartoon online.
- According to a 2017 investigation by The Times of London and later cited by the New York Post, Freedom-of-Information data shows that UK police arrested over 3,300 people in 2016 for allegedly “offensive” or “hate-related” comments that were posted online. This falls under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Most of them were detained and questioned and many cases were later dropped.
- The New York Post reported that during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown in Australia, a pregnant lady named Zoe Buhler, was arrested in her home for promoting an anti-lockdown event.
- A criminal investigation was opened up into a German citizen for calling the politician Ricarda Lang fat, as reported by the New York Post.
And there are many more of these absurd cases. Yes, there are restrictions on free speech, but these are obvious censorship examples from government.
What Is Not Considered Free Speech?
Hate speech can contribute to violence, especially when used by a person or group in power. We see this in historical examples like Nazi Germany or Rwandan genocide, which show how state-sponsored propaganda played a role in atrocities.
However, not all hate speech leads to violence, and there is an important distinction between free speech and incitement of violence in the United States law. The U.S Supreme Court has ruled that speech can only be restricted when it poses a clear and present danger or is intended to incite imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
The clear distinction is speech that expresses hate is not the same as speech that directly incites violence. In short, we should take threats seriously and actively work to punish incitement to violence but not equate offensive speech with violence.
The Bottom Line
- Hate speech should be considered free speech, and the first amendment protects all speech which safeguards individuals from government overreach.
- Censoring hate speech can be a slippery slope where the most offended individuals or powerful institutions often determine what can be said.
- Many countries like Germany and Australia show how hate speech laws can lead to excessive government censorship.
- U.S. law distinguishes between free speech and incitement of violence.