# 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:** 11
**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:** [November 2, 2019, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/201 "2019-11-02T02:18:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It is punishable, socially and in every other way aside from legally. I think outlawing it could lend some sense of apparent legitimacy to the deniers, as they can much more credibly claim to be martyrs and victims. So that would be a “loss” for society, IMO. I can’t see as there is going to be much difference between their claiming martyr status “illegitimately” while being punished only socially/every other way and “legitimately” claiming it for legal punishment. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/202 "2019-11-02T02:26:53Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I see this as a contradiction. If you maintain that people are punished for hate speech (through shunning or whatever), but that punishment leads to legitimacy, then shunning already leads to legitimacy…? So why does an additional punishment make such a difference? And can you just generally be more specific as to what you think would happen? > > Wrong. Our judicial system has shortcomings, but being like totalitarian regimes is not one of them. Punishment in North Korea is quick and severe; our court system is slow and full of technicalities. Yeah, our whole system of government is established on the principle that individuals have intrinsic rights. If one starts eroding that principle out of malice, ignorance, or desire for short term gain the consequences are not good. We already have stupid universities and judges unconstitutionally punishing speech today. If anything people who desire liberty should be advocating for liberty instead of aping totalitarians. ---
**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:** [November 2, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/203 "2019-11-02T02:41:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I see this as a contradiction. If you maintain that people are punished for hate speech (through shunning or whatever), but that punishment leads to legitimacy, then shunning already leads to legitimacy…? So why does an additional punishment make such a difference? And can you just generally be more specific as to what you think would happen? I think legal sanction – outlawing – can lead to some sense of legitimacy. “Outlaw legitimacy” can be a thing, if you follow what I’m saying. I don’t know what would happen for sure, but as I understand it, white supremacist gangs and politicians in much of Europe have a cachet they don’t have here in the US, at least in some ways. I think a part of that might come from the legal sanction they face for speech. Part of it might just be related to my own feelings – I have an instinctive distrust of legal sanctioning of speech unless it’s a direct threat of some sort… and thus I thnk I’d have trouble resisting some feelings of sympathy towards those that are legally sanctioned, say, for publicly saying some historical fact (like even the Holocaust – and I’m a descendant of German Jews that escaped Germany in the 30s) is false. Maybe these feelings come from some sort of educational indoctrination into the First Amendment – I don’t know. But if I have these feelings, I suspect lots of other Americans have them as well. I don’t want white supremacists to get any more sympathy, and thus I think legally sanctioning white supremacist speech, aside from threats and advocacy for violence (which our current laws may not sanction enough), could be a bad thing in the US. It’s the same reason I oppose the tactic of starting violent confrontations with white supremacists – because I think it helps white supremacists by making them sympathetic in some ways. I’m not really worried about slippery slopes – I just don’t want to help white supremacists. ---
**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:** [November 2, 2019, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/204 "2019-11-02T02:43:11Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I can’t see as there is going to be much difference between their claiming martyr status “illegitimately” while being punished only socially/every other way and “legitimately” claiming it for legal punishment. By my feelings, there could be. I think social consequences are very, very different from legal consequences. But it’s just based on my feelings – I don’t have data on this. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/205 "2019-11-02T02:43:42Z")
Thank you for the thoughtful response. Charles Manson became a celebrity because of murder, more or less. But I don’t think that’s a reason to eliminate the crime of murder, do you? ---
**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:** [November 2, 2019, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/206 "2019-11-02T02:46:44Z")
I think I thought of the potential sequence of events that could greatly assist white supremacists if white supremacist speech was somehow made illegal: ~202X: Hate speech is made illegal in some way. ~203X: Legal/political challenges to this new law are successful, and the law is overturned, with a white supremacist as the face of the efforts, and a white supremacist becomes the “face of free speech”, to some extent. I think that, or something like it, might be likely enough to be concerned that such efforts could greatly aid white supremacism. ---
**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:** [November 2, 2019, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/207 "2019-11-02T02:58:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Thank you for the thoughtful response. > > Charles Manson became a celebrity because of murder, more or less. But I don’t think that’s a reason to eliminate the crime of murder, do you? No - the consequences are very different. I take my position because I think it provides less help to white supremacists. I’m not certain about it, but that’s where I lean right now. ---
**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:** [November 2, 2019, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/208 "2019-11-02T04:45:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think I thought of the potential sequence of events that could greatly assist white supremacists if white supremacist speech was somehow made illegal: > > ~202X: Hate speech is made illegal in some way. > ~203X: Legal/political challenges to this new law are successful, and the law is overturned, with a white supremacist as the face of the efforts, and a white supremacist becomes the “face of free speech”, to some extent. > > I think that, or something like it, might be likely enough to be concerned that such efforts could greatly aid white supremacism. Well, if you want data, you could look into whether that happened in other countries that enacted hate speech laws. Granted, in the US a law like that is in more danger of being overturned. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/209 "2019-11-02T06:55:41Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > And I think living in a society where people can freely debate, offend, and reason is far superior to living in a society ruled by an omnipotent state with surveillance everywhere . Yes, the best possible outcome of unfettered free speech is better than the worst possible outcome of hate speech restrictions. And the best possible outcome of hate speech restrictions is better than the worst possible outcome of unfettered free speech - which would be ethnic cleansing, I suppose, given how far you went to the other extreme. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/210 "2019-11-02T08:02:21Z")
Since clairobscur is continuing his arguments in the ATMB thread, I’m just going to quote him here rather than argue this in two threads: > [@Hate speech and censorship](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-censorship/842871/57): > > What does it mean? It means that yes, I’m willing to sacrifice the interests of some people (and I very likely won’t be one of them) to protect an institution that I find absolutely fundamental and irreplaceable. Call them “acceptable casualties”, if you wish. I am in absolute agreement. I just differ as to which casualties I find acceptable. **clairobscur** is willing to throw whole classes of _oppressed minorities_ under the bus of idealistic “free” speech (which is \*always \*limited anyway). I’m willing to throw _Nazis, racists and homophobes_ under the bus of specific hate speech laws. You know what? I’m totally OK with that. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/211 "2019-11-02T08:19:11Z")
Actually, I just want to requote select bits of that with emphases, because it becomes more abhorrent a statement the more I reread it: > [@Hate speech and censorship](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-censorship/842871/57): > > **I’m willing to sacrifice** the interests of some \*\*people \*\*[…] to protect an **institution** People (and once again, let me emphasize that for hate crime laws that means people who historically were absolutely _brutalized_ and often _still suffer oppression today_) must be sacrificed - to an idea. Not an _actual practice_, because\*\* there’s no place where free speech is absolute\*\*. But the _idea_ of free speech, that is the Moloch into which we must feed _actual people_ - our gays, our PoCs, our Jews, our disabled, all our oppressed. All so some Nazis can get to deny the Holocaust with impunity. ---
**Author:** ![Unreconstructed\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/76d3ee/32.png) [@Unreconstructed\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unreconstructed_Man)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/212 "2019-11-02T09:26:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > **clairobscur** is willing to throw whole classes of _oppressed minorities_ under the bus of idealistic “free” speech (which is \*always \*limited anyway). I’m willing to throw _Nazis, racists and homophobes_ under the bus of specific hate speech laws. You know what? I’m totally OK with that. The definition of Nazi and racist are far broader than they were a few years ago. If these (and other) definitions keep expanding, there’s no limit to who could be thrown under the bus. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/213 "2019-11-02T10:00:14Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > The definition of Nazi and racist are far broader than they were a few years ago. No, the definitions are unchanged. It’s just that more Nazis and racists are open about their beliefs since probably the 60s. For … reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Unreconstructed\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/76d3ee/32.png) [@Unreconstructed\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unreconstructed_Man)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/214 "2019-11-02T10:03:57Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, the definitions are unchanged. It’s just that more Nazis and racists are open about their beliefs since probably the 60s. For … reasons. That doesn’t fit with my day to day experience at all. I see people being called racists (and white supremacists, and fascists, and even, occasionally, Nazis) for stuff which wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow twenty (or maybe even ten) years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/215 "2019-11-02T10:42:33Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > That doesn’t fit with my day to day experience at all. I see people being called racists (and white supremacists, and fascists, and even, occasionally, Nazis) for stuff which wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow twenty (or maybe even ten) years ago. And maybe that means that possibly, just maybe, the world of twenty years ago was fucked in the head ? And we’re recognizing it now ? Eddie Murphy, hardly an icon of Trumpism, opened his extremely popular 1983 comedy show \*Delirious \*with a long bit on “faggots” (his word) and his fear of catching AIDS from them. To much laughter from the crowd. Since then language and ideas have become more polished, more tolerant… and more coded and dog-whistly on the part of -phobic shitheads. And then comes this orange man who abandons all pretence at euphemisms and chameleon hatred, and oh boy are the tiki torch crowd loving him ! And supporting him, or deploring his tone while pushing forward their own -phobic rethoric wrapped in more “civil” terms. We’re not fooled. And we call these people for what they are, because the word for “fascist apologist” or “opportunistic supporter of fascism” is “fascist” ; as there’s no meaningful nor practical difference between an honest to goodness fascist, one who plays one on TV, and one who plays one to sell fascists magic pills. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/216 "2019-11-02T10:45:37Z")
(and if you think that this wave of fascist, racist actors being granted far-reaching platforms or the normalization of hate is harmless or doesn’t lead to upticks of -phobic violence ; you really haven’t been paying attention.) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/217 "2019-11-02T11:13:05Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > And maybe that means that possibly, just maybe, the world of twenty years ago was fucked in the head ? And we’re recognizing it now ? Yep. It’s not the definitions that have changed. It’s the public will to act. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/218 "2019-11-02T11:50:48Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > The definition of Nazi and racist are far broader than they were a few years ago. If these (and other) definitions keep expanding, there’s no limit to who could be thrown under the bus. “If laws allow for abortion, then doctors can murder second grades with impunity.” Same argument. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/219 "2019-11-02T11:52:33Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > That doesn’t fit with my day to day experience at all. I see people being called racists (and white supremacists, and fascists, and even, occasionally, Nazis) for stuff which wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow twenty (or maybe even ten) years ago. We can’t debate personal experience. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/220 "2019-11-02T12:19:47Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > This really isn’t a good example. A Native American can’t open up a casino in downtown Dallas or Orlando, Florida because the states those cities are in either don’t allow gambling or restrict it in other ways. Native Americans can open casinos on their own land because it’s sovereign territory. Yes, I’m aware - saying “Native American casinos” is shorthand for saying “Casinos on Native American land” since they often don’t run the casinos entirely themselves. The whole point being that Native Americans get sovereign territory in the USA that others don’t. > [@](#): > > i.e. They don’t get to open casinos because they’re Native American they get to open them because they control their own territory. That’s a tautology. > [@](#): > > Affirmative Action laws in the United States these days aren’t typically written in such a way as to only apply to certain races. US AA laws are not the only AA laws in the world. And regardless, the practical effect is the exclusion of some races from some benefits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=12)