September 17, 2018
4:33 PM

Image via Shutterstock

Is it me or have a whole-helluva-lotta people been talking about implementing laws against hate speech lately? And I’m not only talking about the many man-on-the-street interviews or guest-on-a-show folks I have heard. In 2017 former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler both proclaimed, “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

There have been many op-eds, such as The Guardian’s, “Hate speech leads to violence. Why would liberals defend it?,” as well as NBCNews.com’s, “Is the First Amendment too Broad?”

Even more concerning, a whopping 40 percent of millennials, according to Pew, believe the government should “prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups.”

Holy crap! Howard Dean was a governor!
Wheeler is a mayor! And millennials are going to be governors, mayors, senators, prosecutors, judges and journalists!

Hence this column, which is less a column than it is an open letter, a plea really, not to tinker with The First Amendment.

For those friends and readers who favor hate speech legislation, please hear me out. If for no other reason than that we are both coming from the same place—that of equality and justice—we just disagree on how to achieve it.

As someone who has debated this issue many times, I know there are some things about which we are never going to concur. For instance, I don’t believe words are capable of hurting people, whereas some people might think that they do. Fine, let’s put that aside. I think intent matters whereas some might not. No problem, set it aside. Some might think that banning certain words will diffuse their harms and I think censorship makes words more potent—let’s set that aside too. Some might say people of color need protection, whereas I say that is condescending and portrays POC as helpless.

Table it for later. I think every individual has agency and can choose what they do or don’t find offensive, whereas some people want to decide for everyone in advance. Table it. Table all of it. Because even if I’m wrong, there’s still the most convincing reason to oppose hate speech legislation: It will come back to bite us on the ass.

Friends, I mean no harm for this label I am about to affix, but let’s assume that most reading this column are on the leftish side of the political spectrum. I could be wrong, but if the person reading this favors hate speech laws, I’ll bet dollars to dandelions they also favor universal health care, relaxed or open borders, affirmative action programs and, most of all, the ousting of Donald Trump. I’m also guessing their contempt for the current president is as potent as my contempt for unicorn furries. If this is true, then they should be careful what they wish for. Because, sure, hate speech legislation sounds great when they are the one defining hate. But into that cake is also baked enough wriggle room for the government to define what is hateful or offensive, and right now the government is run by an administration despised by the very people who want to give it more power.

Why on Earth would we want to surrender the sovereignty of our vocabulary to anyone, least of all Donald Trump? Dude is about to place a conservative judge to the United States Supreme Court—the court that would ultimately define hate speech should it become illegal. Who then would be more likely to wear the leg irons now that the swing vote goes to a Trump crony?

The pundit on Fox News advocating the deportation of Muslims? Or Colin Kaepernick for being “offensive” to the military? Or Black Lives Matter members for expressing “hatred” toward the police?

I know what readers are thinking: They’re thinking, “But Ed, we have separation of powers to keep that from happening.” Exactly! And free speech is part of that separation. It helps citizens retain a modicum of power. By conceding that power to the government, we decrease our power and increase its power, or in this case, his power.

Look, I’m no fan of Donald Trump either, but I don’t think he would support the prosecution of Colin Kaepernick. I worry more about who comes after Trump, or even the person who comes after that person. How long will it take before an administration emerges and decides that our speech is the hateful speech? Why even take that risk? Because, remember, our shared goal is to support minorities—to ensure equality, for everyone, even unicorn furries. The problem is that minorities are in the minority.

Historically, around the world—in governments, as on the playgrounds—the majority gets over on the minority. Which is why the majority must be tamed and, once tamed, stay tamed. So we manage the majority with anti-tyranny tools such as separation of powers, due process and a Bill of Rights. Tinker with those rights, especially the first one, and the next thing we know the majority is swinging its big, dumb dick around again. And then, when the oppressed minority starts howling in protest, the majority-dominated, swinging-dumb-dick government—the one we empowered to define hate speech—will call it “hateful” and shut it down.

This is not some paranoid conspiracy theory.

This is how it works—how it always has worked.

It’s what the founders learned from the past, and their present, and precisely why they put The First Amendment first. For it is upon that amendment that the others thrive.

http://sdcitybeat.com/news-and-opini...e-speech-laws/