by Timothy Justice

Created on: March 05, 2011

To say we should not tolerate "hate speech" is to say we should not tolerate free speech. While the news is filled with examples of people who say things that are repugnant to others, the simple truth is, they do themselves in with their own talk. Most people have very little tolerance for someone who uses violent or deliberately inflammatory rhetoric, and listening to their speech is enough to change opinions rather quickly.

Recently, The Westboro Baptist Church won a Supreme Court case that affirmed this position. The Westboro Baptist Church, as many know, has made a name for itself and its "pastor" Fred Phelps by going around the country picketing various funerals of soldiers. They first became notorious at the funeral of Matthew Sheppard, but have expanded with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A father of one of the soldiers whose funeral was protested lodged a suit that was appealed to the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that Phelps and his congregation had the right to protest because they followed all of the local laws pertaining to the protest.

While the Westboro Baptist Church has provided us with a very clear look at hate speech, it is important to note that not one of its church members has taken up arms against anyone for the activities they are protesting. I have no problem at all stating my opinion that they are cretinous thugs, and it is important to note that the same protections that extend to them extend to me on the same grounds.

But more to the point, the problem of hate speech is in defining it. Is it hate speech when a white person calls a black person the "N" word? Then why is it not hate speech when a black person calls a black person the same word? Similarly, why is it not hate speech when a black person calls a white person "cracker"? Forming a definition of hate speech means implicitly giving one group a set of rights superior to others.

I have personally seen conservatives, and Christians, labelled with a number of invectives that would make my grandmother blush. Yet nobody is standing in their defense, nobody is claiming that the words used against them constitute "hate speech". Nor, frankly, should they. If you cannot defend your position, frankly, you're not that strong in it.

There is no doubt that our Founding Fathers were well aware of the potential emotional damages of hate speech when they drafted the Bill of Rights. Yet, they drafted it because they understood that, for a democracy to function, the open exchange of ideas is vital. Even ideas that may not be popular or even correct.

I sympathize with those who have been hurt by the negative speech of others. And, in fact, I have no problem boycotting businesses, groups, or churches that I know participate in these actions. But if we ban "hate speech", and forbid Americans from speaking, not only do we endanger our own rights, but we allow the thoughts and ideas of these individuals to fester and grow away from public attention. And that makes it much, MUCH harder to identify the type of person that might take hate speech and make it a clarion call for action.

Learn more about this author, Timothy Justice.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.