Ian Eisner’s column on Harvard’s possible hate
speech ban (“Possible Harvard speech code unwise,” Dec.
5, 2002) is a good summation of the argument that tolerates hate
speech ““ its conclusion is that permitting hate speech is a
logical and moral consequence of free speech.
However, the Constitution does not tackle the idea of free
speech past stating that “Congress shall make no law …
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” which in
itself does not quite cover the complexity of the issue, as the
existence of the controversy proves.
There are several instances in U.S. history where the
incompleteness of the First Amendment has caused the Supreme Court
to rule contradictorily regarding hate speech ““ such
instances are Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Chatlinneski v. New
Hampshire (1942), the latter in which the Court ruled that,
“No person shall speak offensive, derisive, annoying words to
anyone in a public place.” But clearly the issue of hate
speech is not resolved with such specific rulings, as the current
disagreements regarding it show.
The fundamental confusion in the argument that harbors hate
speech under the umbrella of free speech is the confusion between
freedom and liberty. The difference between the two is that freedom
is a right, while liberty is a privilege; freedom is a necessity,
while liberty is a luxury.
It is necessary that free speech be practiced in a democracy
““ it is necessary because of free speech’s function in
keeping social order. Hate speech is a consequence of free speech,
but how does that legitimize it? Eisner is making the argument that
hate speech can be legitimized by the same token as free speech
because it is founded on the same principle.
But, contrary to what you may believe, hate speech is not
essential to the well-being of society. Hate speech is not a
necessity, as its function directly collides with that of free
speech, whose function is to communicate. Hate speech is the enemy
of communication which, by definition, inspires a thought
process.
“An intellectual argument pointing out the misguided
nature of offensive speech can go further in stomping out the roots
of insensitivity that can any speech code,” Eisner
observes.
If you think that through an intellectual argument you can prove
to someone that racism is wrong, you can save the world. You can
try telling a Klansman that the family of the lynched man will be
devastated. Try it, I’m sure it will inspire second
thoughts.
Hate speech is, for the most part, regulated by our society; but
apparently it wouldn’t bother some to see racial slurs on
billboards. Which brings me to my next point: hate speech is a
liberty which can infringe on another person’s freedom. In
response to Eisner’s quoting of UCLA law professor Eugene
Volokh on speech codes, I do not grasp the concept of speech codes
causing “more felt offense, not less.” What are the
numerous levels of offense that can be caused with the same
slur?
Another thing I can’t figure out is how one can judge what
should and shouldn’t be offensive. Why are slurs against
whites not as offensive as blacks? Quite simply, because blacks
apparently are easier to offend with racial slurs than whites.
Study some United States history and take a look around in the
country you live in and you may understand.
There is no logical argument against racism: a drive as
primitive as hate cannot be combated with logic. Human dignity is a
self-sufficient concept; its justification is beyond the reach of a
logical argument. You either understand that or you don’t,
but in the meantime, keep your hate to yourself.