The Need for the Restrictions of Hate Speech in America

Recently, the Westboro Baptist Church has been quite often in the headlines. The Anti-Defamation League’s website calls the church “a small virulently homophobic, anti-Semitic hate group” based in Topeka, Kansas (“About WBC”). Since 2005, Westboro has often picketed the funerals of homosexual soldiers with signs that say “God Hates Fags” or “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” (“Pickets inspire legislation and legal action”).

This behavior is offensive to the grieving families, and many states have tried to enact legislation that limits Westboro’s ability to picket funerals (“Pickets inspire legislation and legal action”). However, the question of free speech must be answered. Can states restrict Westboro’s First Amendment right to free speech because what it says is insulting and intrusive? Westboro’s protesting is an example of “hate speech,” or “speech that promotes hatred or prejudice toward a particular race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other group” (“Hate Speech”). This “speech” is not only spoken words, but also “symbols, signs and published material” (“Hate Speech”). In some cases, the term “hate speech” is also used to describe expression that is in any way critical of a person or group.

A majority of people in America are against hate speech, especially when it is directed against homosexuals, women, African Americans, or other minorities. In fact, as of 1999, 75 percent of Americans favor excluding hate speech from protection under the First Amendment (“By The Numbers: Hate Speech”), and the numbers have likely increased since then. Opponents of hate speech argue that “hate speech functions not merely as speech but as an active means of preventing minorities from gaining an equal footing with others” by threatening them and making them afraid to fully participate in society (“Hate Speech”). Minorities are scared to voice their opinions because the opposition is so hostile (“Hate Speech”). However, while hate speech is usually offensive, neither the offended nor the states get to decide what is or is not allowable under the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech” (“Bill of Rights Transcript Text”). Even though people do not have to agree with what is spoken, hate speech is necessary to have true freedom of speech and must be actively protected under the First Amendment.

Actually, hate speech is already being restricted on some college campuses through what are called “hate speech codes” (Uelmen). While hate speech codes are meant to prevent harm to minorities, “what campuses prohibit as ‘hate speech’ is primarily opinion that, while often offensive and unpopular, does not cause serious harm” (Uelmen). Texas A&M University has “Reservable Free Speech Areas” on campus (“Appendix XI: Texas A&M Rules on Freedom of Expression”), which implies that free speech is not allowed elsewhere. While this, in and of itself, may contradict the First Amendment, hate speech codes are also a problem because they shield students from dissenting opinions and keep them from learning to tolerate other viewpoints, an attitude that is necessary outside of a college campus (Uelmen). To help prepare students for life after college, hate speech must be allowed at universities.

Another place where hate speech may be restricted is the internet. Depending on the source and the criteria for what constitutes “hate,” estimates of the number of internet hate sites range from about 300 to 2,800 (“Hate Speech on the Internet Should Not Be Restricted”). Some people want to censor the internet for the sake of children, to keep them from being influenced by hateful speech or from viewing pornography. However, what those people must consider is that “pretending hate does not exist does not make it so” (“Hate Speech on the Internet Should Not Be Restricted”). If children do not encounter the hateful side of an argument on the internet, how will they ever learn to combat those arguments when they encounter them in real life? If children do not learn that there are some people who claim the Holocaust never happened, they will not learn what to say when they meet these people. It is necessary to keep the internet an open “marketplace of ideas” (“Hate Speech on the Internet Should Not Be Restricted”), just like a college campus.

The main issue with hate speech restrictions is that “one person’s gibe is another’s offense” (Gallagher). If one person tells an uncomplimentary joke about homosexuals that he believes is funny, another person may find the joke extremely offensive. Or, if someone points out an unflattering aspect of Islam, even though it is true, someone else could still feel insulted. Lawmakers advocating for hate speech (or “defamation”) laws cannot know where to draw the line. What hate speech laws would really do is not criminalize actions, but personal beliefs and ideas (Gallagher). This was never meant to be and should never be within the scope of the federal government’s powers. Because what could be considered hate speech is so subjective, laws silencing hate speech should not be passed.

Finally, if hate speech were restricted, where would the censorship stop? Laws silencing hate speech could be used to justify restricting any form of speech, from political to religious. “If hate speech is barred today… restrictions on other political or social views might not be far behind” (“Hate Speech”). Popular opinion would decide what speech would be restricted, a constantly shifting preference instead of a well-defined set of rules. This is a dangerous predicament in which to put society, as what is legal today may be illegal tomorrow. Banning hate speech could lead to a “slippery slope” scenario, causing the downfall of other constitutional rights as well.

The appropriate way to combat hate speech is not to silence it, but to speak the truth against it. When a child finds an anti-Semitic website on the internet, the parents should sit down with their child and explain that this kind of racism is wrong and that all people are created equal. In 1999, Joseph T. Roy said, “The alternative [to countering hate speech with the truth] is to try to ignore these sites and to hope your child does not come across them—a hope that is increasingly unrealistic. History shows us that ignoring ugly social problems like racism does not make them go away” (“Hate Speech on the Internet Should Not Be Restricted”). With the ever-escalating popularity of the internet and the anonymity it provides, ignoring these issues is even more unrealistic now than it was almost fifteen years ago. No matter how offensive it is, speech that is critical of others is also critical to the foundation of a free society and must be protected by the First Amendment.

Did you like this example?

236

12