In reference to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?ref=todayspaper
On the surface, it seems like banning hateful speech might be a good idea. After all, angry words are hurtful, and don’t we all say that changing things has to be done in a constructive manner anyway?
The problem with limiting our first amendment right to free speech (and free speech that is less than polite) is because you never know who is doing the defining of what is hate. The entire point of the first amendment is to be able to freely disagree. When disagreements close in on delicate subjects (religion, race, class, etc) they can easily be misread as “hate speech.” Cases of unfounded criticism and belittlement should be responded with strong retorts that break the offending arguments and win back the hearts and minds of the readers. They should not be banned by a government censorship committee.
From an NYT article:
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
Enforcing (sorry, protecting) mutual respect is all well and good when you are the party being respected. But when you have genuine concerns, and find yourself silenced for voicing them, in the name of respect, the merits of 1st amendments strick interpretation are vivid.
America ends up being a country where you have to not only succeed by your own merits, but also stand up for yourself with your own wits. Of course, using some examples the article brings up, a march by the nazi party through a town of holocaust survivors seems terrible, but as long as no property was damaged nor persons attacked, it cannot be deemed illegal. Why not? Not because it’s a good thing that nazis march through Skokie, but because to take voice away from one group sets precedent to take it away from others, including you, if you ever find yourself on the wrong side of the political landscape of the time.
More from NYT:
“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”
And hurrah for that!
Tags: canada, free speech, politics, united states