May 25, 2012
Should Hate Speech Be Outlawed?
Former Justice John Paul Stevens reviews Jeremy Waldron's The Harm in Hate Speech in the NYRB:
...Waldron reviews his debate with Anthony Lewis about freedom for the thought that we hate. Lewis argues that we should learn to tolerate hate speech because codes regulating it would create a danger of overenforcement that could seriously threaten the expression of unpopular ideas. Waldron believes Lewis undervalues two points: first, that what is regulated by hate speech laws is not hateful thought but hateful expression (a point that seems unimportant to me, since thought and expression are closely intertwined in this context); and second, as Waldron often repeats, that toleration of ugly speech is easier for liberal bystanders than for the target of the speech.
Waldron and Lewis agree, however, that “Americans are freer to think what we will and say what we think than any other people.” They also agree, up to a point, about the history that led to that freedom. In 1798, when Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Act, the United States was a young country and federal authority was precarious:
George Washington was denounced as a thief and a traitor; John Jay was burned in effigy; Alexander Hamilton was stoned in the streets of New York…. Republican militias armed and drilled openly, ready to stand against Federalist armies. Over everything, like a specter, hung news of the Jacobin terror in France. It was by no means obvious in those years—though it seems obvious to us now—that the authorities could afford to ignore venomous attacks on the structures and officers of government, or leave the publication of such attacks uncontested in the hope that they would be adequately answered in due course in the free marketplace of ideas.
It was over a century later—in the aftermath of World War I—that federal judges began to see the power of the state as much more of a threat to the individual than vice versa.
The interesting and informative discussion of history in this chapter omits any comment on the importance of a unique aspect of American history: the fact that during the period under discussion the dynamic growth of America was fueled by immigration of several different ethnic groups, each attracted by the freedom of opportunity here but also each engaged in economic and political competition with other groups of immigrants. What might now be classified as “hate speech” included not merely comments by members of the majority but exchanges between rival ethnic groups.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 06:21 AM | Permalink






















Comments
"What might now be classified as “hate speech” included not merely comments by members of the majority but exchanges between rival ethnic groups."
And what might now be classified as "repulsive" was then considered normal property ownership, of people.
Times change.
Posted by: RonAnon | May 28, 2012 3:57:15 PM
I don't think he was referring to hate speech being more acceptable because of the times, but merely pointing out that hate speech is not limited to its use by those in the majority against an oppressed or unpopular minority. Oppressed and marginalized minorities have been known to engage in hate speech against other similarly situated groups.
Of course the issue is not one of repulsiveness, but whether the repulsive nature alone sufficiently justifies civil or criminal penalties.
Posted by: igor | May 29, 2012 10:59:02 PM
There are a number of criteria and divisions in the area.
1) Is it hate speech or incitement to hatred / violence?
2) Is the victim placed in reasonable apprehension of violence because of it?
3) Does the hate speech occur in a context where there is a clear duty not to engage in it-- such as an employer using racial or sexist language aggressively toward an employee.
4) Is there malice aforethought, such that the speech is only intended to cause the propagation of hatred? Albeit cloaked in mitigating terms, such as calling for tolerance while effectively stirring up hate.
Posted by: Renideo | Jun 1, 2012 2:29:57 PM
Society may decide to punish those who deliberately incite others to acts of violence, and this is typically the case. It may equally decide to forbid, in effect, teachers from employing hate speech towards minority children, while not punishing children for doing it to other children.
These distinctions are easily framed, and provided society has clear boundaries, there is no particular reason to worry about the thought police.
It is absolutely the case that over-enforcement can occur, the twitter joke case in the UK is a good example. Generally these cases are rare and tend to lead to some movement back away from the precipice. A similar case involving racist comments about a football player involved in a serious medical emergency came up not long after the aforementioned case and attracted a very different reaction. New technology is testing the boundary between direct speech, and public speech, but it's not unreasonable to assume that a satisfactory conclusion will ultimately be reached once the law settles.
Similar problems have arisen in deciding how media regulation can apply to blogs of different sizes and scopes as traditional newspapers fade out. The whole issue is hotly contested right now, but usually a sensible delineation is arrived at eventually.
Posted by: Renideo | Jun 1, 2012 2:37:04 PM
Post a comment