Debunking The Censorship of Hate Speech

‘Hate speech’ is the other big excuse for censorship. Opposition to “hate speech” provides an appearance of virtue, It clearly defines those who speak such words as inferior. It has also served an important purpose that it was probably intended for (it’s a fairly new term). As a relatively new term, it has served the important purpose of allowing many who were claiming to abide by traditional left-wing credentials on human rights and individual autonomy to move to the fascist ideology of their corporate mentors, whilst still pretending to be advocating a humanitarian cause.
Hating a person is something very different, and in a realm that human law cannot clearly define or encompass. For example, you could love someone but believe that justice should be served for a crime they commited, and that would not be hate. You could be at war with someone and not hate them – that is in part what is in part what is meant by “love your enemies.” You may even take on the hard task of a soldier without denying the humanity and equality of those you are protecting your country against. Therefore, on what grounds do states legislate hate speech? In fact, when they try to do this, it often results in problems.
For instance, there was a concerning development that contradicted this in the US. You’d recall that in a case that has sparked debate over free speech in American schools, the First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, regarding a student’s T-shirt. More specifically, last year, seventh-grader Liam Morrison made national headlines when he wore a straightforward T-shirt to school, which bore the words:  “There are only two genders.”  The school promptly asked him to remove it, citing a violation of the ‘dress code policy’. Morrison’s refusal resulted in his dismissal from school for the day, accompanied by his father.
The young fellow later explained his motivation for donning the shirt and even delivered a speech before a school assembly, recounting his experience. He said that “The reason that I wore it is because, well, everyone has a right to their opinions and I wanted to be able to voice mine on a subject that a lot of people were talking about.”  He continues to say “I have been told that my shirt was targeting a protected class. Who is this ‘protected class? Are their feelings more important than my rights? I don’t complain when I see pride flags and diversity posters hung throughout the school. Do you know why? Because others have a right to their beliefs, just as I do.”
Morrison and his family eventually took the matter to court, arguing that the school’s actions infringed upon the student’s First Amendment rights. However, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school’s decision, denying Morrison’s appeal and reinforcing the earlier ruling by the District Court.
But, taking this a step further, for people concerned about being offended, I’d also like to make the argument that hate speech has a place in a functional society for 2 reasons. First, when people speak frankly about even hateful sentiments they hold, you have the privilege of an honest discussion, and an adequate measure of the moral inclinations of society. Furthermore, it is easier to challenge and debate (for instance) racist ideas with people who are openly racist than with people who form secret clubs and societies in which they share their racist inclinations among others who think the same. Therefore, there is less inspiration for change toward acceptable virtues, if those who do not yet possess them are not challenged to assess their thinking through open debate and free speech. Secondly, when someone is frank with you about what they think, it is a manifestation of respect as opposed to that person telling you what they think you want to hear.
Written by Londokuhle Mabaso