a case for hate speech
By Diogenes (articles ) | Aug 16, 2005
British PM Tony Blair has asked for new legal muscle in order to deport those he calls "preachers of hate." We all understand the pressures that make it an attractive political temptation to silence hate speech, but I think it's a temptation that should be resisted. Speaking from within the citizenship of a democratic state -- as opposed to, say, membership in a Catholic parish -- I'd want to defend the right of other citizens to give voice to their hatreds, including hatred of Catholics in general and of this individual Catholic in particular.
Isn't spreading hatred a sin? It is. But how many of the sins you admit in Confession are, or should be, crimes under civil law? Western democracies happily tolerate greed speech, lust speech, envy speech, sloth speech, pride speech -- in fact, it's a rare specimen of advertising, entertainment, or political oratory that doesn't urge us to embrace one deadly sin or another. Why should "hate speech" be singled out for banishment?
One obvious reason is that civil peace requires a minimum level of mutual toleration, and by definition hatred is intolerant. But all democracies have laws against "incitement to riot" -- public encouragement to break the laws already in place. So it's not persons or property that are defended by laws prohibiting hate speech. What is?
Laws against hate speech protect and fortify the ideological worldview of those who enforce them -- and here I don't mean cops, but the politicians, the law profs, the prosecutors, the judges, and (most importantly) the media elites who beam the spotlight of their antagonism on some groups they find noxious while giving others a pass. What makes hate speech a crime is not what the perp actually does or intends to do, but what the victim claims to feel -- and, de facto, only certain groups are accredited as victim groups. If your target doesn't qualify as an approved victim, it doesn't matter how much heat is in your hatred; if it does qualify, the good will that motivates your discourse is equally beside the point. Do we trust Harvard Law School, CNN, and the Cook County Democratic Committee to decide what speech is hate speech and what isn't?
Earlier I linked a photo from the March for Women's Lives showing a gal holding a sign that reads Euthanize Christians. Sure smells like hatred to me. On the other hand, it's pretty much par for the course among pro-aborts and only slightly more edgy than the discourse common in Gender Studies departments and the journalism of "alternative" weeklies. Dawn Eden's example of the Planned Parenthood snuff cartoon belongs in the same category. Has any law prof or prestige-media editor suggested this verges on the criminal? Even those whom it targets have largely become inured to the venom. Sure they hate us, so what's new?
If the tables were turned, and the material splashed in public read "Euthanize [insert accredited victim group here]" -- we can imagine all too clearly the consequent outrage, and if that outrage were equipped with the power to punish with criminal sanctions, it would not be slow to use it. But within the last five years we've seen the "hatred threshold" ratcheted-down dramatically. It's no longer a matter of spray-painting tombstones or shattering windows -- public reading of the Book of Leviticus can count as hatred. Remember, what matters is what the victim wants to matter. The Episcopal Bishops of Massachusetts linked hate crimes to a notice from the CDW on admission to Holy Orders. If our prisons become (even in part) re-education camps on the Chinese model, do we want to give these guys the power of the keys?
For Christians, hate speech laws are a lose-lose proposition. We have excellent reason to doubt the elites will accord us victim status, and excellent reason to believe the same elites will find crimes in our ordinary evangelical discourse. I admit I don't like it when some red-fanged imam gloats over the torment awaiting the infidels, but it's a price we should be willing to pay for the liberty to speak the truth ourselves. "Blessed are you when men hate you," Jesus said. He commanded us to pray for those who wish us ill, but did not tell us to gag them.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our year-end goal ($124,738 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Aug. 18, 2005 2:48 PM ET USA
Does anyone know the names of individuals who first framed the concept of a law against "hate crimes" and have been instruemental in promoting such a law? I would not be surprised if a majority of those individuals were secularists (non-Christians). There motive? I would not be surprised if their motive was to use the courts to suppress Christianity in action.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Aug. 17, 2005 1:44 PM ET USA
Posted by: -
Aug. 17, 2005 11:24 AM ET USA
More people were executed in the 20th century than in the previous 2000 years combined, and not by Islamic extremists or the KKK, but the repressive, tyranical governments of the world who sought to impose tight restrictions on human behavior. The totalitarian regimes have always been interested in restricting speech. We have more to fear from governments than Islamic extremists. Compare body counts from the two gulf wars. T.S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral has never been more appropriate.
Posted by: -
Aug. 17, 2005 9:16 AM ET USA
If publicity were dropped for hate speech, and no one listened or complained, how long would it survive? Of course, that might seriously hamstring the liberal media that thrive on its mutations. I guess we are stuck with it as long as humanity lasts. Consider the source, and make the best of it. We already have laws against violence, but that doesn't seem to stop it. Be positive, and counter it with truth.
Posted by: Thomist -
Aug. 17, 2005 7:41 AM ET USA
For years we have been abrogating our rights for the sake of the common good -- for example, gun-control laws. And I suspect we will need to do so for years to come. It is far easier to enact laws than to convert hearts. My prayers are with Gertrude and the hearts in her charge.
Posted by: sparch -
Aug. 16, 2005 10:31 PM ET USA
The last forty years has shown our culture in a vivid and deadly way that those irresponsible with their speech (namely by spreading false docturine) have been able to manipulate our culture to beleiving right is wrong and wrong is right.
Posted by: O'Solanus -
Aug. 16, 2005 2:50 PM ET USA
In further reference to Magna Carta, Article 51 of that document states: As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom's hurt.
Posted by: O'Solanus -
Aug. 16, 2005 2:17 PM ET USA
Free speech in Britain has roots in Magna Carta and no one is seeking to deny that right to law abiding citizens. What is at stake is whether foreign nationals, and even some naturalized citizens have a right to incite violence, death and the overthrow of a society that has welcomed them and provided them privileges unknown in their countries of origin. Britain is simply refusing to let enemy combatants within the walls. Many Americans wish our government would likewise defend our borders.
Posted by: Gertrude -
Aug. 16, 2005 1:50 PM ET USA
This article goes in my Religious Education folder. Exactly what I'm trying to teach my students, stand back and evaluate whats going on! I could never have expressed it so well, but the trend in legislating "hate crimes" laws fill me with foreboding. Well done Diogenes.