I write to reject “hate speech” as valid or useful. The term is a conclusion, a judgment given without evidence. A free society leaves the individual to decide for themselves the merit or its lack in lively exchanges of opinion.
Using “hate” to describe opinions a person doesn’t like is no more than them saying “I want you to hate what I dislike, and better yet let’s make it unlawful so I can feel better about my prejudices.”
I hold it cowardly rubbish when a citizen hides bias behind the hate speech screen. I value freedom of expression and trust in citizens to decide for themselves what is worthy and what is not without the blasphemy police employing “hate speech” to limit debate.
For two American centuries free expression gained the ground needed for social and political freedom we now appreciate. Hate speech is the kissing cousin of blasphemy law and social control. Yes, free expression can be messy, but we are at less risk with that than from hate-speech censorship.
Indeed, free speech must often be offensive; the Civil Rights Movement did not succeed by not upsetting segregationists. Those valuing liberty and freedom of expression in a free society should be wary of crafty devices meant to limit what we may say and thereby crush what can be debated.
Harry Drabik
Hovland
Leave a Reply