# 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:** 15
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/281 "2019-11-03T18:25:29Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > 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. You just object to laws protecting a class of people being harassed, libeled, slandered or threatened? ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/282 "2019-11-03T18:38:03Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > 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? Most people here don’t want Republican approved anything. So this argument is universal for any law or plan. ---
**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 3, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/283 "2019-11-03T18:58:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You just object to laws protecting a class of people being harassed, libeled, slandered or threatened? There is a difference between threats of violence and ridiculously enforced rules that are triggered by a word. If someone wants to rap along to so-called gangster rap,there should be 0 penalties for doing so as long as that music is legal to produce. People should also have no fear of retribution from the state or violent mobs for political participation. Regardless of the color of hat they wear. ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/284 "2019-11-03T19:06:46Z")
There’s lots of laws triggered by the use of words. What I’d like to know is why you are fine with laws that protect John Doe from damaging speech but are vehemently opposed to laws protecting gays or jews from damaging speech. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/285 "2019-11-03T19:09:25Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > There is a difference between threats of violence and ridiculously enforced rules that are triggered by a word. … So if there is no threat of violence it is fine? You then disagree with the SCOTUS ruling in the case of Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson? That’s the one in which they ruled “unanimously that creating a hostile work environment for women was not protected speech”. No threats of violence there, just hostile speech. Was SCOTUS wrong? Should it be overturned? Consistent with your line of thinking why or why not? ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/286 "2019-11-03T19:31:02Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > 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? Governments (be they GOP or Democratic led) will always be biased to what speech they want to allow or disallow. I suspect those who are very fine with burning the Koran were horrified that burning of the American flag is legal. Being realistically cynical, the new laws that will be passed will most often be ones that protect the interests of those with the power to get them passed, and not ones that protect the speech of those who threaten that power. So yeah, we should be cautious about new laws. The issue though seems less of new laws than in the interpretation of the laws we have, in how to balance conflicting sets of rights. And how we agree and disagree in how we object to others speech as acceptable social norms. Whose free speech counts to be protected more? Here’s an example. Somebody with highly offensive beliefs is in a public space to speak, not calling for violence. They have free speech rights. Protesters are there and are yelling over them, disrupting the presentation, not calling for violence. They have free speech rights. The offensive speech causes harms to others. The disruption limits the ability of the speaker to express their ideas, also a harm. Balance the equation please. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/287 "2019-11-03T19:59:14Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > There’s lots of laws triggered by the use of words. What I’d like to know is why you are fine with laws that protect John Doe from damaging speech but are vehemently opposed to laws protecting gays or jews from damaging speech. Exactly. Once you move away from an absolutist position, you have to be able to answer this. Libel and slander laws allow an individual to invoke the power of the state to punish another individual for speech or published information. Why are defamation laws consistent with the First Amendment, but a law that protects members of a group from harmful speech (e.g. - “I think all members of group X should be rounded up by the government and killed.”) would be struck down under the 1st Amendment? ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/288 "2019-11-03T20:33:07Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Why are defamation laws consistent with the First Amendment, but a law that protects members of a group from harmful speech (e.g. - “I think all members of group X should be rounded up by the government and killed.”) would be struck down under the 1st Amendment? Are there a great deal of people in the US today talking about rounding up a particular group and having them killed? ---
**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 3, 2019, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/289 "2019-11-03T20:37:39Z")
So… Should people in America be forbidden from drawing cartoons of Muhammed? That’s a real life example of hate speech laws squelching speech. How about just saying something derogatory about Islam or Muhammed? If so, how about anti-semitic speech against Jews? Or are they no longer ‘protected’? How about Christians? Should Andres Serrano have been sanctioned in any way for ‘hate speech’? If not, why? He certainly offended many Catholics. What if the Catholics started riots or killed people because of ‘Piss Christ’? Would that make it hateful enough to ban? Most places that have hate speech laws define hate speech as hateful speech that is targeted at a ‘protected’ minority. Who should decide who is a ‘protected’ minority? The Amish have no power, they get ridiculed regularly. Should they be a protected minority? Or in your world of hate-speech laws will it be legal to say, ‘Fuck the Amish’, but not ‘Fuck the \’? These are ultimately political decisions, and they will be made by those in power. If ‘hate speech’ laws were on the books in the 1950’s, do you really believe they would 't have been predominantly used to shut down the left? As it is, people like Lenny Bruce were arrested for obscenity, and many people on the left were saved by tye ‘absolutist’ 1st Amendment protections that kept overzealous law enforcement from outright jailing them for their ‘offensive’ speech, And I’d remind you all that the people who wanted to shut down the speech of the left used exactly the same argument you are using - that unbridled speech would lead to violence, the breakdown of public order, etc. There will come a time when the worst government you can imagine will wind up in power, And no, it’s not Trump. Trump is too hated, too marginalized, and too opposed by his own bureaucracy to really have the power to do anything sweeping… Imagine a smarter, more controlled Trump, coming to power at a time when the country has moved back to the right and gives him huge support to ‘crack down’ on left-wing speech. At that time, you will be very happy to have the protections of an absolutist 1st amendment. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/290 "2019-11-03T20:56:25Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You just object to laws protecting a class of people being harassed, libeled, slandered or threatened? I certainly have no problem with laws against threats of imminent violence against an individual or group but we already have those laws. None of us has a right to go through life without being offended. If someone says homosexuality is an abomination before God and they will burn in hell if they don’t amend their wicked ways is that hate speech? If I go to vote and someone close to the polling place has a sign stating how terrible atheist are is that a hate speech? If someone decides to hold a rally and burns thousands of copies of the Quran is that a hate speech? ---
**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 3, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/291 "2019-11-03T20:56:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So… Should people in America be forbidden from drawing cartoons of Muhammed? That’s a real life example of hate speech laws squelching speech. How about just saying something derogatory about Islam or Muhammed? > > If so, how about anti-semitic speech against Jews? Or are they no longer ‘protected’? How about Christians? Should Andres Serrano have been sanctioned in any way for ‘hate speech’? If not, why? He certainly offended many Catholics. What if the Catholics started riots or killed people because of ‘Piss Christ’? Would that make it hateful enough to ban? > > Most places that have hate speech laws define hate speech as hateful speech that is targeted at a ‘protected’ minority. Who should decide who is a ‘protected’ minority? The Amish have no power, they get ridiculed regularly. Should they be a protected minority? Or in your world of hate-speech laws will it be legal to say, ‘Fuck the Amish’, but not ‘Fuck the \’? > > These are ultimately political decisions, and they will be made by those in power. If ‘hate speech’ laws were on the books in the 1950’s, do you really believe they would 't have been predominantly used to shut down the left? As it is, people like Lenny Bruce were arrested for obscenity, and many people on the left were saved by tye ‘absolutist’ 1st Amendment protections that kept overzealous law enforcement from outright jailing them for their ‘offensive’ speech, > > And I’d remind you all that the people who wanted to shut down the speech of the left used exactly the same argument you are using - that unbridled speech would lead to violence, the breakdown of public order, etc. > > There will come a time when the worst government you can imagine will wind up in power, And no, it’s not Trump. Trump is too hated, too marginalized, and too opposed by his own bureaucracy to really have the power to do anything sweeping… Imagine a smarter, more controlled Trump, coming to power at a time when the country has moved back to the right and gives him huge support to ‘crack down’ on left-wing speech. At that time, you will be very happy to have the protections of an absolutist 1st amendment. How come none of this has come to pass in Canada yet? Are you guys just very lucky? ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/292 "2019-11-03T21:01:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So… Should people in America be forbidden from drawing cartoons of Muhammed? That’s a real life example of hate speech laws squelching speech. How about just saying something derogatory about Islam or Muhammed? I would say something “derogatory” is far too low a bar for a hate speech legislation. Especially if it’s directed towards the actual religion or an historical figure. Could you flesh out your real life example? I assume you mean the Danish cartoons but they were actually published, no? Am I misremembering or was there a different incident? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/293 "2019-11-03T21:04:36Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Are there a great deal of people in the US today talking about rounding up a particular group and having them killed? That’s a factual question. My post asks a constitutional/legal question: why can one citizen invoke the power of the state to punish another person for speech that harms the first person’s reputation, but it would be contrary to the First Amendment to allow a group to invoke the power of the state to stop another person from calling for the members of the group to be killed? Does the First Amendment value reputation more than personal safety? ---
**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:** [November 3, 2019, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/294 "2019-11-03T21:14:28Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Being realistically cynical, the new laws that will be passed will most often be ones that protect the interests of those with the power to get them passed, and not ones that protect the speech of those who threaten that power. This. Hate speech laws are something that sound great in theory - but will almost certainly not be applied evenly or equally in practice - and furthermore, _many of the proponents of hate-speech laws **do not intend** such laws to be applied evenly or equally._ ---
**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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/295 "2019-11-03T21:28:58Z")
**Sam Stone** - There is no absolutist First Amendment right. Period. Debate how to _balance_ the conflicting demands of Free Speech and Equal Protections and harms. _Few_ I think are in fact advocating for more hate speech laws in America because **Sam Stone** , the laws that were on the books HAVE been used to squelch dissent. From my linked transcript of the _On The Media_ episode: > [@](#): > > In the middle of the First World War, there was an activist named Charles Schenck who is handing out anti-war flyers urging men to evade the draft. He was sentenced to jail for violating the new Espionage Act, which banned interference with military operations or recruitment. Schenck said that the act infringed on his First Amendment rights. But the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. In fact, one justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote an opinion saying that Schenck’s pamphlets met a quote, ‘clear and present danger standard and that therefore the government could send Schenck to jail.’ Holmes compared non-violent political protest to shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater. I love our flag and what it stands for. But I am struck by the fact that those who screamed about Free Speech in defense of that Florida pastor who burned a Koran also were very likely strong supporters of passing an amendment to outlaw burning the American [flag](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/trump-backs-ban-flag-burning-no-brainer.html). I object to the ideas that are being expressed in both cases and each, as offensive as each is, must be equally allowed. To argue that it is far prefered to err in the direction of Free Speech over Harms, maybe even over equality of protection in some cases, is reasonable. But the discussion is where the harms are great enough and who gets to decide it, on what basis; the absolutist position is untenable. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/296 "2019-11-03T21:35:29Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I certainly have no problem with laws against threats of imminent violence against an individual or group but we already have those laws. None of us has a right to go through life without being offended. If someone says homosexuality is an abomination before God and they will burn in hell if they don’t amend their wicked ways is that hate speech? If I go to vote and someone close to the polling place has a sign stating how terrible atheist are is that a hate speech? If someone decides to hold a rally and burns thousands of copies of the Quran is that a hate speech? You conveniently sidestepped all those others in the list that weren’t threats of violence. Regardless, I wouldn’t defend a hate speech law that made mere offensiveness a crime. Why do you think it has to be that broad? As it happens, the UK did initially have “insult” as part of their legislation but it was removed 5 years ago. The Canadian legislation would certainly require more than what you example for charges to be laid. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/297 "2019-11-03T21:40:01Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That’s a factual question. > > My post asks a constitutional/legal question: why can one citizen invoke the power of the state to punish another person for speech that harms the first person’s reputation, but it would be contrary to the First Amendment to allow a group to invoke the power of the state to stop another person from calling for the members of the group to be killed? > > Does the First Amendment value reputation more than personal safety? I think you’re missing the difference between hate speech and incitement to violence. Incitement is generally illegal. That’s a call for people to commit a crime with the reasonable expectation that some people who hear the call will commit that crime. But hate speech may not be calling for any illegal action. It may just be generally abusive such as saying black people are inferior to white people. Or it could be advocating for an act which while racist, is not illegal; like calling for the return of segregation or the banning of interracial marriages. These are hate speech but they’re not incitement. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/298 "2019-11-03T21:46:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > How come none of this has come to pass in Canada yet? Are you guys just very lucky? How come they still have hate and racism in Canada then? Note who our President is. ---
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/299 "2019-11-03T21:46:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think you’re missing the difference between hate speech and incitement to violence. > > Incitement is generally illegal. That’s a call for people to commit a crime with the reasonable expectation that some people who hear the call will commit that crime. > > But hate speech may not be calling for any illegal action. It may just be generally abusive such as saying black people are inferior to white people. Or it could be advocating for an act which while racist, is not illegal; like calling for the return of segregation or the banning of interracial marriages. These are hate speech but they’re not incitement. Things can be an incitement to violence without being explicit. If I go around saying a specific person or a group of people are child molesters, I am putting them at an increased level of being assaulted. Do you disagree? ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699/300 "2019-11-03T22:00:20Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I would say something “derogatory” is far too low a bar for a hate speech legislation. Especially if it’s directed towards the actual religion or an historical figure. > > Could you flesh out your real life example? I assume you mean the Danish cartoons but they were actually published, no? Am I misremembering or was there a different incident? In 2006, the publisher of the Western Standard in Canada was forced to defend himself against an Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for publishing those cartoons. He eventually won, but he had to spend thousands on lawyers to win. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wapo-editorial-why-america-needs-a-hate-speech-law/842699.md?page=16)