# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/261 "2019-11-02T23:31:42Z")
Lenny Bruce is spinning so fast in his grave he may have achieved takeoff velocity. Richard Nixon Would have loved ‘hate speech’ laws in the 60’s and 70’s. Then He could have given it to those campus radicals good and hard, eh? They said lots and lots of hateful things back then, Hate speech laws are generally advocated by people who believe they have current cultural supremacy and want laws to cement their position. When the left was outside of the mainstream, they believed in total free speech, even going out of their way to be hateful and shocking to make the point. People made All kinds of ‘shock art’ in the 70’s that their targets found hateful, The first amendment was the only thing protecting those people from government persecution. I’m sure Andre Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’ was seen as hateful and oppressive hy many Catholics. And certainly drawing a cartoon of Muhammed would be seen as ‘hate speech’ by many. So are those of you who thjnk hate speech laws are cool would be willing to have the government punish a cartoonish for drawing fhat cartoon? and if so, would you apply the same standard to Serrano, or Lenny Bruce, or George Carlin, or Howard Stern? how about Kathy Griffin holding up a model of the severed head of the president? Should she have been charged with a crime? Would you honestly prefer a world in which these people were charged with crimes for saying what they did? I prefer a world in which Illinois Nazis only have to worry about Jake and Elwood Blues, not government stormtroopers shutting them down because they engage in badspeak. And I would say the same for Illinois Communists. Here’s a modest proposal: Any party that wants hate speech laws can have them if they allow their opposition to define what is and isn’t hateful. After all, if it’s so clear cut and non-partisan, that shouldn’t be a problem, right? ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/262 "2019-11-02T23:41:28Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Lenny Bruce is spinning so fast in his grave he may have achieved takeoff velocity. > > Richard Nixon Would have loved ‘hate speech’ laws in the 60’s and 70’s. Then He could have given it to those campus radicals good and hard, eh? They said lots and lots of hateful things back then, > > […] > > I’m sure Andre Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’ was seen as hateful and oppressive hy many Catholics. And certainly drawing a cartoon of Muhammed would be seen as ‘hate speech’ by many. So are those of you who thjnk hate speech laws are cool would be willing to have the government punish a cartoonish for drawing fhat cartoon? and if so, would you apply the same standard to Serrano, or Lenny Bruce, or George Carlin, or Howard Stern? how about Kathy Griffin holding up a model of the severed head of the president? Should she have been charged with a crime? Would you honestly prefer a world in which these people were charged with crimes for saying what they did? Here, chuck another one on the pile of “categorical opponents of hate speech laws who have no idea what hate speech _is_” ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/263 "2019-11-02T23:47:03Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Here, chuck another one on the pile of “categorical opponents of hate speech laws who have no idea what hate speech _is_” The funny part of this is that \*\*Sam Stone \*\*'s country (Canada) has hate speech laws and they have experienced none of the slippery slope nonsense that Sam envisions. ---
**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 3, 2019, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/264 "2019-11-03T01:24:14Z")
You’re clearly wrong. You just think Canada is doing fine because the recent genocide of conservative white men has been censored by Supreme Leader Trudeau. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/265 "2019-11-03T02:13:58Z")
Everybody should be able to say or write whatever the fuck they want. And everybody should be able to say or write whatever the fuck they want in response to the above. Nobody can respond to any of the above with physical violence against persons or property. Case closed. Simple. ---
**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 3, 2019, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/266 "2019-11-03T05:40:57Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > Everybody should be able to say or write whatever the fuck they want. > > And everybody should be able to say or write whatever the fuck they want in response to the above. > > Nobody can respond to any of the above with physical violence against persons or property. > > Case closed. Simple. So let’s say I start a flyer campaign to say that Jews are child molesters. I stick a pamphlet in every car in the neighborhood and buy GoogleAds to get clicks on my website. You can just respond with a “Jews aren’t pedophiles” flyer campaign? That’s how society should respond? ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/267 "2019-11-03T10:04:49Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > YLeavers who voted Out in 2016 for economic reasons are told to stop hiding behind dog whistles and just confess their racism? No, I believe they’re the ones covered by the “…or you’re thick” part. ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/268 "2019-11-03T10:08:24Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Alright, perhaps the being in jail comment was a bit of an exaggeration. Still, the idea that totalitarian states are the most dangerous institutions in the history of peoplekind is something that is too easily dismissed. Mate, you’ve never lived in a totalitarian state. I have. And \*\*that experience is _precisely why I love our hate speech laws_. ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/269 "2019-11-03T10:26:38Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, I believe they’re the ones covered by the “…or you’re thick” part. So a Leaver who voted Out in 2016 for economic reasons, but who is demonstrably _not_ thick would, by elimination, have to be a racist. Is that what you’re saying? ---
**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 3, 2019, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/270 "2019-11-03T13:15:33Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Sure you can. We see exactly what he’s alluding to on this very board. People are called Nazi or racist or whatever when they advocate for free speech. Think about that. Advocating for individual liberty and a check on state power is now equated, in an intellectually dishonest fashion, with Nazis. It’d be funny if it weren’t having an actual impact in the real world. Again, without context, it’s impossible for me to refute what you’re saying, not because what your saying is necessarily valid (or invalid for that matter), but because without context, the rest of us are not there to experience the same set of phenomena that you’re referring to. You want us to accept that the way you experienced the phenomena is the way the rest of us should have experienced and interpreted it, which is, as I see it, one of the chief distinctions between modern conservative worldview and that of progressives, or that of people who don’t so much identify as (typically white) conservatives. ---
**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 3, 2019, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/271 "2019-11-03T13:34:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Lenny Bruce is spinning so fast in his grave he may have achieved takeoff velocity. > > Richard Nixon Would have loved ‘hate speech’ laws in the 60’s and 70’s. Then He could have given it to those campus radicals good and hard, eh? They said lots and lots of hateful things back then, > > Hate speech laws are generally advocated by people who believe they have current cultural supremacy and want laws to cement their position. When the left was outside of the mainstream, they believed in total free speech, even going out of their way to be hateful and shocking to make the point. People made All kinds of ‘shock art’ in the 70’s that their targets found hateful, The first amendment was the only thing protecting those people from government persecution. > > I’m sure Andre Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’ was seen as hateful and oppressive hy many Catholics. And certainly drawing a cartoon of Muhammed would be seen as ‘hate speech’ by many. So are those of you who thjnk hate speech laws are cool would be willing to have the government punish a cartoonish for drawing fhat cartoon? and if so, would you apply the same standard to Serrano, or Lenny Bruce, or George Carlin, or Howard Stern? how about Kathy Griffin holding up a model of the severed head of the president? Should she have been charged with a crime? Would you honestly prefer a world in which these people were charged with crimes for saying what they did? > > I prefer a world in which Illinois Nazis only have to worry about Jake and Elwood Blues, not government stormtroopers shutting them down because they engage in badspeak. And I would say the same for Illinois Communists. > > Here’s a modest proposal: Any party that wants hate speech laws can have them if they allow their opposition to define what is and isn’t hateful. After all, if it’s so clear cut and non-partisan, that shouldn’t be a problem, right? Freedom of speech is always going to be valued more by ethnic and political minorities for the obvious reasons. Among other things, freedom of speech is the freedom of a group that has less power to criticize and challenge the group that has the power. Speech is a tool for the group without power to challenge power, which is why you saw progressives creating shock art in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and why you had gangsta rap in Southern California in the late 80s and early 90s. It’s a way to push back against the inevitable thuggery of the group that possesses power. Hate speech laws don’t exist to promote Straight Outta Compton albums or Piss Christ paintings; those are artifacts that emerge as a result. They exist so that people don’t violence doesn’t percolate so easily in the mind before it becomes actual violence. Violence, in and of itself, can be either an individual or social act. A personal dispute, a drug deal gone bad, a bitter custody battle that ends in violence - that’s more local. But racial violence is intended to be an act of social violence - always. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/272 "2019-11-03T13:49:05Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So let’s say I start a flyer campaign to say that Jews are child molesters. I stick a pamphlet in every car in the neighborhood and buy GoogleAds to get clicks on my website. You can just respond with a “Jews aren’t pedophiles” flyer campaign? That’s how society should respond? Yup. ---
**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 3, 2019, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/273 "2019-11-03T14:03:25Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > So a Leaver who voted Out in 2016 for economic reasons, but who is demonstrably _not_ thick Sorry, but that’s a self-contradictory statement. \*Unless \* … you’re talking about [Boris Johnson’s shorting chums](https://labourlist.org/2019/09/no-deal-brexit-who-gains-boris-johnsons-friends/), in which case, yes, I was wrong, and I apologize. I failed to account for the third category of “evil capitalist swine”. _Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa._ So, “Racist, or thick, or just plain greedy evil”. ---
**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 3, 2019, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/274 "2019-11-03T15:23:43Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > Yup. Is that because you think it’s harmless or you think that’s the price we must pay for a free society? ---
**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:** [November 3, 2019, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/275 "2019-11-03T15:25:21Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > Yup. So the group with the larger ad campaign wins? ---
**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 3, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/276 "2019-11-03T16:24:15Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > So a Leaver who voted Out in 2016 for economic reasons, but who is demonstrably _not_ thick would, by elimination, have to be a racist. Is that what you’re saying? Stop angling for a gotcha. You’re not going to get a debate-winning gotcha. HTH. Try to argue from sincerely held convictions instead. ---
**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 3, 2019, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/277 "2019-11-03T16:30:03Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Sorry, but that’s a self-contradictory statement. > > \*Unless \* … you’re talking about [Boris Johnson’s shorting chums](https://labourlist.org/2019/09/no-deal-brexit-who-gains-boris-johnsons-friends/), in which case, yes, I was wrong, and I apologize. > > I failed to account for the third category of “evil capitalist swine”. _Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa._ > > So, “Racist, or thick, or just plain greedy evil”. Don’t apologize. Short-term chaos profiteers like Reese-Mogg absolutely fit in the “thick” box. They’re a different \*kind \*of short-sighted from the usual urrr durrr UK more prosperouser alone set, but still ultimately complete idiots. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/278 "2019-11-03T17:56:31Z")
[_On The Media_](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/against-free-speech-absolutism) had a very good primer on the history of Free Speech and specifically the dangers of Free Speech Absolutism a few weeks back. It is a long listen (three parts) but I think anyone who is interested in the subject would find it very informative and thought provoking. Lots to disagree with but based on lots of great explanations of the history. Transcript [here](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-sticks-and-stones). The second segment is where it gets most informative IMHO. > [@](#): > > JOHN POWELL When Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address, he used the phrase, ‘fourscore and seven years ago.’ Afterwards, it was a firestorm because people were pissed, some people, because what Lincoln was doing was criticizing the Constitution. Fourscore and seven years ago was the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And he was saying that the Constitution was a flawed slave document. And he ended by calling for something radically different than essentially a slave Constitution. Here we just had the bloodiest war in U.S. History, is still a war which killed more people than all the other wars combined, and clearly there was an effort to do something radical. > > ANDREW MARANTZ The post-Civil War constitution, the one that began with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, that was supposed to make all people born on U.S. Soil citizens, full citizens with the right to vote, the right to participate fully in democracy. According to these amendments, they now enjoyed equal protection under the law. > > JOHN POWELL The 14th Amendment is designed to bring the freed slaves and blacks generally into political community. If you’re born in the United States, you are a citizen–full stop. > > ANDREW MARANTZ So the problem, according to Powell, is that we never really implemented the post-Civil War constitution fully and the court has never really reckoned with the tensions that can arise when you strengthen one right at the expense of another. So if you consider freedom of speech, you can see how strengthening one person’s speech rights can actually limit someone else’s ability to participate fully in democracy. If someone’s speech terrorizes someone else into silence. > > P.E. MOSKOWITZ It’s one thing to talk about all these nice and fluffy concepts of free speech and being able to say whatever you want but, in the day to day reality of the United States, that just doesn’t exist for many people. … > … ANDREW MARANTZ The retort of the free speech absolutist is to say, ‘well, the best answer to speech you don’t like is more speech.’ But in practice, it doesn’t always work. For instance in the 1970s, as more and more women started to enter the workplace, their male co-workers were often hostile or outright intimidating. So again, this is the tension between the 1st and 14th Amendments, between the right to speech and the right to full public participation. Here, the right of the male co-workers to sexually harass the women in their workplace, which is speech after all, and the rights of those women to fully participate in the workplace. In 1986, the Supreme Court made a decisive turn away from a free speech absolutist position in the case of Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson. The court declared unanimously that creating a hostile work environment for women was not protected speech. > > JOHN POWELL This actually as a harm, it creates a hostile workplace. Women can’t perform. … > … JOHN POWELL That doctrine was later extended to race but it took a long time. Both of those are saying there are some conditions where you cause harm and can’t simply be fixed by more speech. > > ANDREW MARANTZ It’s not just a workplace issue. If you’re an African-American intending to vote and people are holding up signs outside your polling place saying, ‘I know where you live.’ Those signs are speech but their speech that is designed to diminish your full participation in our democracy. … > … ANDREW MARANTZ --we live our lives in a lot of private spaces. You know, workplaces, universities even online spaces that are built by private companies. So the First Amendment doesn’t apply there in the same way and Benesch thinks that a lot in those spaces can be achieved by shifting norms rather than shifting laws. > > SUSAN BENESCH What is the likelihood that an American politician will use the N-word knowing that the microphone is on? The likelihood is very tiny because that person will then lose that election. The person will be punished not by law but in another way. > > BROOKE GLADSTONE The norms that were supposed to keep a troll from winning a presidential election didn’t quite work in 2016, did it? … Today’s NYT also has a very [pertinent bit](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/style/what-is-cancel-culture.html?fallback=false&recId=397059175&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=IL&recAlloc=top_conversion&geoCountry=US&blockId=published-assets-bq&imp_id=976735447&action=click&module=Most%20Popular&pgtype=Homepage) that is on point for the subject of this thread re non-governmental attempts of censorship, and the attempt to create norms alluded to above, what I now have learned gets called being “cancelled.” Clearly there is a balance to be had. Speech that restricts others’ rights and causes others harms does not an absolute pass over everything else. Yet some in these discussions only see the harms as they relate to those with POVs that they are sympathetic to. “Cancel” culture is an exercise of speech that can cause harms to others just as the use of hate speech can. “Free Speech” too often means the freedom to say what I want to hear and only that. There is and will be a tension over what the norms are, evolving standards. It was once okay to use speech that is not okay now and we have not sunk into totalitarianism because there are social norms that get enforced socially for norm violative speech. If there is an easy way to decide where the line gets drawn though I sure don’t see it … but the discomfort with the fuzzy blurry greyness should not justify retreat into the simplistic comfortable fiction of absolutism to either side. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/279 "2019-11-03T18:14:29Z")
Being against hate speech laws doesn’t necessarily make one a free speech absolutist. I’ve got no objection to laws relating to harassment in the workplace, libel, slander, or threats. Out of curiosity, in the last two years how many examples of hate speech do you see in the United States that should be outlawed? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/280 "2019-11-03T18:24:36Z")
OK, let’s agree that good hate speech laws are a good thing to have. Now, is the U.S.government capable of passing effective hate speech laws, laws will actually protect minorities and marginalized groups? In other words, do you guys want Republican-approved hate speech laws? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=15)