- Click here for the article.
Those who favor laws prohibiting hate speech cite human dignity and the psychological damage it has on its victims, as well as its historical relationship with genocide, as the main reasons for censorship. In the United States, however, free speech is considered an essential component of democracy. In order to govern ourselves effectively, we believe we need access to all ideas regardless of their effect.
In a recent Supreme Court case involving the Westboro Baptist Church, whose members picket the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs reading, “God hates fags,” Chief Justice John Roberts said that hurtful speech on public issues must be protected to ensure that public debate is not stifled. While this argument is valid, it is worth noting that the majority of judges responsible for drawing the fine line between expression and true threats or incitement, have likely not been the targets of hate speech themselves.
The question now is: What do we do about it? We value free expression but loathe government restrictions on speech. How do we address the undeniable impacts of hate speech while preserving the free flow of ideas required for an effective democracy?
Private social-media companies can limit hate speech on their sites. Activist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center could lobby to expand the current federal statute to punish threats aimed at broader racial or religious groups. On a more personal level, individuals with the privilege to do so can confront the people in their lives who use hate speech.
Regardless of the approach, the time to act is now. Just because hate speech is legal, does not make it right. This presidential election season, and Trump’s candidacy in particular, highlights the need for greater civility in political discourse. And civility is a choice.
