by Daniel Troit

Created on: February 08, 2009

Several nations have passed specific legislation prohibiting or restricting hate speech. The desire to maintain a standard of equality for their citizens has lead different governments to regulate the content of certain speech in order to inhibit the ability of one group to intimidate or incite violence against another. While acknowledging an individual's right to live free from unreasonable harassment, the United States has been unable to prioritize such a right above that of the Freedom of Speech that it treasures as a core American value. Because of its reticence to restrict any nature of discourse, the United States has been the home of a continuing domestic conflict over whether such laws should be enacted.

Hate speech is said to distinguish itself from other forms of expression in its specific focus upon individuals or groups based upon differences in being, as opposed to differences in action. The direct expression of hate toward another is only considered hate speech if it is based upon intrinsic general differences and not personal experience. If one individual were to express hate for another based upon some personal grievance stemming from a personal interaction, they would not be necessarily engaging in hate speech.

In asking whether we, as a society, should tolerate hate speech, we are essentially asking if intolerance should be met with more intolerance. Do we desire to hinder the hateful advances of one party to restrict another through words by restricting another right, perhaps more fundamental? The question of tolerance implies that the population has a choice as to whether it will allow such speech. In truth, however, the ability of one party to restrict the free speech of another, regardless of how hateful or encouraging, is non-existent. The guarantee of free speech is set to preserve and engender debate in a freethinking and democratic state.

In seeking to legislate against hate speech, one is essentially admitting one's own incapacity to combat hate speech with a greater argument. The desire to face our social problems in the open, away from the cloister of secret bigotry is what inspired the very spirit of debate that fuels our protection of all forms of speech. The challenge of hate speech is not a political but rather an intellectual and social issue. To make laws abridging such a right not only inhibits the efforts of bigots but patriots as well.

How, then, are we as a people to combat the schism and aggression in a nation made apparent in hate speech? Are we to treat the symptom and forbid such expression or would that be a cowardly avoidance of the cause? The true source of separation and hatred between groups is a lack of communication, not an overabundance. If we are truly opposed to the hatred heard in the words of some, it is our duty to argue against and disprove those ideas, not restrict them. Only when we step up to the plate and take full responsibility for our task to change minds instead of laws will we be able to remain both tolerant and free.

Learn more about this author, Daniel Troit.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.