by Stephen Richert

Created on: September 17, 2007

Clearly we should tolerate hate speech. We have no choice. Waaaaiiit a minute! I'm not suggesting we have to like it! It is important (and surprisingly rare) that anyone actually defines the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Yes, thats right, please put your nooses down for just a moment before you bum rush me out of self righteous indignation. I am not a Nazi and I don't vote in a particularly conservative vein. I am engaged to a lovely young woman from the Dominican Republic (no I didn't buy her from a coffee farmer) and my brother's wife is a black lady who fits right in with our crazy white family.

See? The first thing anyone has to do in these conversations: defend themselves in order to get the chance to...defend themselves some more. Bottom line is, even if I was married to an albino girl from Norway and lived in Alabama, the facts remain. Accepting hate speech is not something I endorse. Tolerating it is something we must endure. Like death and taxes. Only a few people get off on it, and no one likes them anyhow.

All people hate to some extent, and subsequently express that hate. Rarely does anyone agree, let alone care when some individual is hellbent on sharing that hatred with others. People ignore ranting and raving and either the hateful individual gets over it and manages to live in the world with others, or they go insane and are forced out of society. Are we going to punish people for how they feel? Or is it just certain outbursts? Who then are we going to choose to regulate what can be said, and how much hate is "ok", or where the line lies between hate and strong dislike?

Obviously no one can do that fairly because every human will have some personal agenda. Today, everything is interpreted in terms of motives and feelings and intentions. The ironic thing is that none of those are "hard" factors- ergo one can only speculate about them, not judge them outright. Hate crime legislation for example, makes actions no longer based on their consequence but on their motivation. Following this logic, my refusal to hold the door for someone I hate is the same as if I choke the life out of them. It doesn't take a great deal of explaining to see where this can lead. Or where it has lead already. It doesn't work, and it only creates a power struggle out of the concept of morality. Oh, wait, morality has been a power struggle for as long as anyone can remember! More compelling evidence that morality shouldn't be legislated since it is clearly subjective...

On the other hand here's an idea that might appeal to those in both sides of this debate: why don't we refuse to tolerate hate speech or thought in our own selves? Ultimately, who else can we control, and who else are we accountable for? If you want to see a change, then be that change. You may never cause those around you to conform to your ideals, but you will always KNOW that at least ONE person is sincere and serious about eradicating hate speech. After all, sincerity is what we're all after here, right, not just conformity.

I know. Too simple, no fun, no controversy. The flaws are readily apparent...

Learn more about this author, Stephen Richert.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.