One of the most treasured freedoms is that of free speech—the ability to openly express one’s beliefs, without regard for whether others agree with you or not. But free speech also has limits, such as prohibitions on slander and libel, and the famous notion that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
Do you think that hate speech should be prohibited? Is it more important that people be free or that they be just or kind?
” Is it more important that people be free or that they be just or kind?” Seems to me that this is not the question to ask. Banning hate speech would not cause the people who speak hate to become just or kind. It would just drive them underground where they are not subject to societal impediments to hate speech. I’d rather know who the haters are so I can avoid them or work in legitimate ways to thwart implementation of their hateful agendas.
Much as I deplore hate speech, I think we have to be extremely careful about making any kind of speech illegal, for several reasons. First, it is difficult to define what constitutes hate speech. Inherently ambiguous laws are never a good idea. Anyone whose job it is to apply such a law would have to exercise subjective judgement. Some people would use the law to squelch legitimate speech. Then, the ban can become a tool for squelching legitimate speech.
Second, banning one kind of speech sets a precedent, opening a door to banning other kinds of speech. Ban abortion and you open a door to legislating reproduction; if/when different standards prevail, you have a precedent to limit the number of children people can have or to require pregnant women to abort if ultrasound or amniotic fluid tests indicate the fetus is abnormal. And how far do you, then, take that? What if scientific developments allow us to determine the fetus’s intelligence; where on the scale to we set the must abort or can abort line? Force fundamentalist Christian beliefs on everyone, and you set a precedent to force Christian Scientist or (yes) UU beliefs on everyone if/when a large and vocal portion of the population joins Christian Scientism or UUism and gains the political upper hand.
Likewise, banning hate speech opens the door to banning other kinds of speech. What about “immoral” speech or “unethical” speech or “scientifically incorrect speech”? Who gets to define what is sufficiently hateful, immoral, unethical or scientifically incorrect to be banned?
In 1966 or so, the head of the American Nazi Party was invited to speak at Antioch College. Heated discussions dominated over the week preceding the visit, divided by those who demanded his appearance be canceled and those who insisted he be heard.
A consensus developed as time drew short. We (800 in the packed auditorium) would greet the speaker with total silence and no protest signs. This was effective. He got no rise out of any person, he got no questions in Q & A, he got no response as he started sputtering his demands for our audience response. He became apoplectic, foaming at the mouth, and stomping about on stage. I was scared he would have a, um, medical event on stage. The audience left, quietly.
This is much better than trying to make what he said illegal, much more effective, and without risking legislation that could lead to suppression of whatever forms of speech are “out” with current holders of power.