# WaPo editorial "Why America needs a hate speech law" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699 "2019-10-30T14:13:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/1 "2019-10-30T14:13:07Z")
[The editorial](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/) is by Richard Stengel, MSNBC analyst and former _Time_ magazine editor and U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Problems with attempts to control hate speech always begin with defining the term. Stengel acknowledges this (“there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is”) and offers two: > [@](#): > > speech that can cause violence by one group against another. > [@](#): > > hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation. He includes examples of speech he considers problematic - but these don’t all conform well to his definitions: > [@](#): > > Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that? (I’m stunned that an intelligent person, even if he disagreed, would not find it easy to give reasons why some people might want to protect that.) > [@](#): > > In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did. > [@](#): > > When Putin said back in 2014 that there were no Russian troops in Crimea — an outright lie — he knew our media would report it, and we did. > [@](#): > > A 2016 Stanford study showed that 82 percent of middle schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and an actual news story. Only a quarter of high school students could tell the difference between an actual verified news site and one from a deceptive account designed to look like a real one. So this isn’t just a push to change the First Amendment - it makes sense only if there’s some sort of Ministry of Truth to decide whether troublesome speech qualifies as “hateful”. Which inevitably leads to the effective definition: Hate speech is whatever those with enforcement authority deem troublesome. This editorial is not one of a kind. Here’s a recent one from the NY Times: [Free Speech Is Killing Us](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html). What’s up with this push in national newspapers - formerly bastions of free speech love - toward unprecedented restrictions on it? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/2 "2019-10-30T14:17:03Z")
My objection to a hate-speech law isn’t so much such a law itself, as it is that it would be unequally applied. It would probably be a case of “It’s hate speech if Group X does it, but not if Group Y does it, even if by definition they’re both protected groups.” ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/3 "2019-10-30T14:20:18Z")
Check out the photo that accompanies the editorial with this caption: “Thousands of protesters march against a planned 'Free Speech Rally” on Aug. 19, 2017, in Boston." One of the protest signs reads “Silence is Violence”. It’s not a big step from that to “Failure to Denounce” laws: you commit a crime if you overhear “hate speech” (as defined this week by the Ministry of Truth) and stay silent instead of reporting it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/4 "2019-10-30T14:38:29Z")
I have the same objection that I always do. The government is supposed to shut down hate speech. Trump is President, and there is a narrow majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court, and the GOP controls the Senate. I seriously doubt if now is a good time to give the government the power to regulate what might or might not incite violence. I also seriously doubt if it would be a good time if the Dems take over Congress and the White House. “I think group X is disgusting and wrong, and whatever they want should be rejected absolutely”. There is no way to define group X narrowly enough so that I could agree with a law banning the statement. IMO Mr. Stengel rather badly misses the point. > [@](#): > > I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate. The distinction between the two types cannot be articulated, because it doesn’t exist. If I hate the speech, then the speech is inciting hate, by definition. It then becomes simply a question of who gets to hate, and who doesn’t. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/5 "2019-10-30T14:42:19Z")
There is always a worrying subset of hate-speech-law supporters whose true motivation isn’t shutting down hate speech, but seeking a legislative weapon with which to squelch opponents. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/6 "2019-10-30T14:44:23Z")
Hate speech laws are censorship. Let the haters identify themselves in their speech and deal with that. I want those people shut down, but not by restricting free speech, that is guaranteed to come back and bite us all in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/7 "2019-10-30T15:04:19Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > There is always a worrying subset of hate-speech-law supporters whose true motivation isn’t shutting down hate speech, but seeking a legislative weapon with which to squelch opponents. And as long as they are never named they become the perfect strawman when you have no legitimate reason to oppose hate speech regulations. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/8 "2019-10-30T15:05:18Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > There is always a worrying subset of hate-speech-law supporters whose true motivation isn’t shutting down hate speech, but seeking a legislative weapon with which to squelch opponents. I’m not even sure it’s a subset. When the NYT publishes an opinion piece calling for the government to outlaw flag desecration or to silence Maxine Waters or [Joe Biden](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/31/how-menacing-invective-against-trump-creates-dange/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8JODr6DE5QIVff7jBx38CAYREAMYASAAEgKsBfD_BwE), we can talk. Until then, it’s more “free speech for me but not for thee”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/9 "2019-10-30T15:41:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I’m not even sure it’s a subset. > > When the NYT publishes an opinion piece calling for the government to outlaw flag desecration or to silence Maxine Waters or [Joe Biden](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/31/how-menacing-invective-against-trump-creates-dange/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8JODr6DE5QIVff7jBx38CAYREAMYASAAEgKsBfD_BwE), we can talk. Until then, it’s more “free speech for me but not for thee”. > > Regards, > Shodan In what country do you imagine Biden would have been violating hate speech laws? You seem to have a comically poor understanding of the subject to bring up an article about Biden and frigging De Niro wishing they could punch Trump. If you can’t understand how burning an American flag is fundamentally different than talking about say, evicting all Muslims from the country I suggest you try harder to understand. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/10 "2019-10-30T15:52:16Z")
> [@xema](#): > > > [@the article](#): > > > > hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of \*\*\*\*\* \*\*\*\*\* a laundry list of pre-established categories. > [@Velocity](#): > > My objection to a hate-speech law isn’t so much such a law itself, as it is that it would be unequally applied. It would probably be a case of “It’s hate speech if Group X does it, but not if Group Y does it, even if by definition they’re both protected groups.” Yes, this. But not so much because I think we should not have protected categories, formally or informally; I do think history, and hence a cultural awareness of people who were disenfranchised or marginalized over a long period of time, is relevant and has bearing on people’s current situation. But. I really dislike the notion that we’ve got all the categorical oppressions identified, got 'em knocked right down into this here plastic box, know what they are, know who the players are, yep, if you’re on the list you’ve been a victim of social injustice, if you’re not, shut the fuck up and get in line, o privileged spoiled one. I dislike it because it substitutes an assembled list for the responsibility to _listen to people_. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/11 "2019-10-30T15:54:17Z")
Dumb editorial and a dumb idea, IMO. I’m all for social condemnation and consequences (i.e. shunning, shaming, boycotts, etc.) for hate speech – and very serious such consequences when it’s particularly egregious, or from someone with a lot of power. But I think government consequences would help the hateful, by making them martyrs and victims. EDIT: I don’t have a problem with criminalizing threats and advocacy for violence (i.e. “kill the Jews!”), which I think goes well beyond hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/12 "2019-10-30T16:33:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > In what country do you imagine Biden would have been violating hate speech laws? A country that implemented Stengel’s suggestions about curtailing free speech, for instance > [@](#): > > speech that can cause violence by one group against another. > [@](#): > > You seem to have a comically poor understanding of the subject to bring up an article about Biden and frigging De Niro wishing they could punch Trump. There isn’t anything wrong with my understanding. Punching people is violence, and saying you want to punch someone could cause violence, and is therefore by Stengel’s standrad hate speech that should be curtailed. > [@](#): > > If you can’t understand how burning an American flag is fundamentally different than talking about say, evicting all Muslims from the country I suggest you try harder to understand. Again, there is no problem with my understanding. Because burning an American flag is not different from talking about evicting Muslims. Both can cause violence, both can arouse hatred in others, both are therefore hate speech by Stengel’s definition. The only difference is who hates the message. Which goes back to what I said - if it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you, that is not a useful definition of hate speech. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/13 "2019-10-30T16:39:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > if it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you, that is not a useful definition of hate speech. Then maybe you should stop pushing that self-serving definition. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/14 "2019-10-30T16:42:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then maybe you should stop pushing that self-serving definition. So what is the definition of hate speech to use? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/15 "2019-10-30T16:44:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A country that implemented Stengel’s suggestions about curtailing free speech, for instance > There isn’t anything wrong with my understanding. Punching people is violence, and saying you want to punch someone could cause violence, and is therefore by Stengel’s standrad hate speech that should be curtailed. > Again, there is no problem with my understanding. Because burning an American flag is not different from talking about evicting Muslims. Both can cause violence, both can arouse hatred in others, both are therefore hate speech by Stengel’s definition. > > The only difference is who hates the message. Which goes back to what I said - if it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you, that is not a useful definition of hate speech. > > Regards, > Shodan No, you clearly misunderstand. In no country that has passed hate speech laws would Biden’s musings about punching Trump be covered. There’s other laws about “incitement to violence” maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/16 "2019-10-30T16:46:53Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > So what is the definition of hate speech to use? From various dictionaries: “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.” From Wiki: “Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/17 "2019-10-30T16:47:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I have the same objection that I always do. > > The government is supposed to shut down hate speech. Trump is President, and there is a narrow majority of conservatives on the Supreme Court, and the GOP controls the Senate. I seriously doubt if now is a good time to give the government the power to regulate what might or might not incite violence. > > I also seriously doubt if it would be a good time if the Dems take over Congress and the White House. > > “I think group X is disgusting and wrong, and whatever they want should be rejected absolutely”. There is no way to define group X narrowly enough so that I could agree with a law banning the statement. > > IMO Mr. Stengel rather badly misses the point. The distinction between the two types cannot be articulated, because it doesn’t exist. > > If I hate the speech, then the speech is inciting hate, by definition. It then becomes simply a question of who gets to hate, and who doesn’t. > > Regards, > Shodan QFT +1 Hate speech, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. Doubt you’ll get any of the partisans here (or anywhere) to admit that their side is even capable of hate speech, let alone ever guilty of it. Gee whilikers, man, don’t you realize that the other side is _evil?_ ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/18 "2019-10-30T16:53:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > From various dictionaries: “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.” > > From Wiki: “Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” Under those definitions, saying “American people are brutal warmongers” would be hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/19 "2019-10-30T17:01:40Z")
From the opinion piece: > [@](#): > > This “marketplace” model has a long history going back to 17th-century English intellectual John Milton, but in all that time, no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood. That’s easy. Individuals either check the underlying sources themselves and come to their own conclusions, or they trust someone else to do that for them. Someone like a journalist. The Russian interference via social media is at its heart a trust problem. Media scrutiny is a life skill that should be given more emphasis in schools and in parenting. Not everything on the internet is true. Instituting a form of censorship does not solve the core problem, because the censor is ultimately susceptible to corruption and lies, too. Taken to an extreme, you get something like N. Korea or Chinese political debate. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/20 "2019-10-30T17:03:27Z")
There has been a frightening decline in support for the principle of free speech in this country. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=2)