“Speech should offend our senses. This allows us a chance to evaluate our own beliefs and standards. More importantly, it gives us the chance to defend our ideas.”
As I have already stated, the Charlottesville protest brings up several issues that need to be discussed. I believe that one of these issues is the truth behind the idea of hate speech. I propose an idea that I am sure some will find more offensive than the values of the Nazi protestors—that there is no such thing as hate speech.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines hate speech as “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.” I personally found the definition from Americanbar.org to be much more comprehensive: “Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” Most people would rally to this definition. After all, who would argue that offensive speech is good?
The problem with this definition is that it is completely subjective. There is no substantive test for offensiveness. Additionally, in today’s world with our current millennial generation, everything is offensive. If we were to criminalize speech that offends or insults, then all speech would be outlawed.
The First Amendment is exceptionally clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Constitution makes a solid case that all forms of speech are acceptable.
Hate speech does not exist except in the mind of the offended. What does exist, however, are people who are too weak and ignorant to defend their own ideals.
Why did our founding fathers make such a blanket statement? Do we really want sick organizations to be able to exist and hide behind this standard? A perfect example of this is NAMBLA—the North American Man Boy Love Association. I first learned of this group in college in my Psychology of Crime Class, also known as the Sickos, Psychos, and Fire Starters class.
This group believes that sexual relations between grown men and young boys are completely natural and beneficial for the growth of these children. This group promotes and essentially trains pedophiles on the methodology of child molesting. How can this possibly be permitted? Except for the most soulless monsters in our society, how can anyone protect this speech as beneficial to our nation?
The problem is how do you draw a line between those ideas and other ideas that may be offensive?
A great example of this would be interracial marriages, which were once considered an immoral act of the most serious offense. Back at the turn of the 20th century, many states had laws on the books making such an action a felony. In 1924, Virginia passed the Racial Integrity Act, which was designed to keep different races from marrying. One of the requirements of the law was to prove your racial purity if you were to marry.
Further, in 1966 there were still seventeen states that forbid these marriages from taking place. In 1967, the Supreme Court heard the case of Love v. Virginia. In this case, the Loves were married in a state that allowed miscegenation but then moved back to Virginia, which did not. The state conducted an early morning raid designed to catch them in the act of coitus, as such acts were illegal at the time as well. Although they were only sharing a bed, they were convicted under Virginia law and sentenced to one year in prison.
The punishment was suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return for at least 25 years. Eventually this case went before the Supreme Court, and these laws were declared unconstitutional. Had the public not been able to voice such hateful speech as equality regardless of one’s ethnic heritage, then institutional racism like this would still be the norm.
The words “hate speech” are designed to shut down a conversation and not allow others to express their views. Lately this is decried as a societal necessity. However, we need hate speech in our society to continue to evolve. Speech should offend our senses. This allows us a chance to evaluate our own beliefs and standards. More importantly, it gives us the chance to defend our ideas. This is exactly how our country was formed—through intense debate.
At one time it was considered a rite of passage to have your ideas tested at our supposed institutions of higher learning. This has not been the case for some time. While the concept of diverse thought is not completely dead, it is clearly in its death throes.
I remember taking a class in college where I had your typical ultra-liberal anti-military instructor. I argued with her almost daily in class. I remember getting into an in-depth argument over the invasion of Panama and how the propaganda she was spewing was complete crap (that is the only word that I think really covers the deceitfulness of her points).
We took an entire class with just the two of us going back and forth. Of course, I was not the typical student. I had already served for six years as a paratrooper in the Army and served a tour in Somalia. I was not about to be told how the military bred mindless killers who only followed orders without any sense of moral obligation to the Constitution of military law.
What struck me at that moment was the fact that not one other student in that class, or in any of my other classes, ever challenged the ideas that were being preached at them. This was long before the current view of millennialism had materialized. These 20-somethings had already long been taught to conform without free thought to what the supposed experts in our society told them was right and wrong. They then passed this down to their children.
This is where we find ourselves today. People are no longer able to think for themselves. They cannot handle hearing an opposing idea or one that challenges their beliefs because they lack the ability to counter-argue. They have been assured that if someone attacks your point of view, then the correct response is to attack them personally. To strike home with this idea, people will even claim to be personally injured by the opinions of others, holding the person with the opposing view as liable for their inability to adapt.
James Damore knows this better than most. James used to work for Google, until he sent an internal memo challenging the motivation for the gender discrepancies in certain occupations within the work force. Two things about this are so over-the-top ridiculous they are hard to believe.
First, Google fired him because of the fact that they want a diverse workforce and his memo was harmful to gender stereotypes. So, they want diversity of thought as long as everyone thinks the same thing?
Second and even more alarming is that several women who work within the company could not go to work the next day because they felt so overwhelmed by the views that James expressed. I had to triple check the facts here because I honestly could not comprehend how this could happen. Someone expresses an opinion and you can no longer do your job, and you are not penalized from your employer for skipping work?
This is what a belief in hate speech leads to—people who are unable to function in the presence of what they believe to be offensive ideas or opinions that differ from their own. Do not get me wrong, I find the entire value system from the Alt Right and Alt Left to be repugnant and disgusting. There is simply no place in our society for such ideas to exist. However, I do not get to make that choice.
What I can do is equally share my voice by using intelligent and thoughtful retorts to destroy their platform and show them to be the moronic trash they are. Hate speech does not exist except in the mind of the offended. What does exist, however, are people who are too weak and ignorant to defend their own ideals.
