Freedom of Expression: Hate Speech

         

"Hate Speech" taken from Who What Why Blog

In learning about the eight values of freedom of expression the one that stood out the most to me was promoting tolerance. The foundation of this value essentially says that it’s important to protect hate speech in order to promote a more tolerant society. When you first read that statement it can be a hard pill to swallow. Why would anyone want to protect hate speech? I continued my research on this and was able to find some interesting information.
            Erwin Chermerinsky the dean of Berkeley Law discusses in an interview  with the New York Times the importance of hate speech being protected by the First Amendment. Chermerinsky says that hate speech, although hurtful, stresses an idea. By taking away a person’s right to express an idea we move closer to a society of censorship.  The core problem that arises with hate speech is who determines what is hurtful and what is not. What one person may deem as offensive another individual may find completely justified or not offensive.
            One of the key arguments Chermerinsky makes is that there can be a time and manner in which we restrict speech however in order for that to work there must be an alternative place open to discuss these issues at all times. What he was getting at was the idea that sometimes in certain situations, such as a college campus, there can be a manner in which topics can be talked about in order to hear all sides as well as maintain order.

Erwin Chermerinsky during a First Amendment Speech
taken from Claremont McKenna College

            I strongly agree with the majority of Chermerinsky’s ideas, however in accordance with my research, not everyone feels the same. Washington Post Reporter, Richard Stengel, wrote an article discussing the complete opposite ideas that Cherminsky expressed. Stengel defines hate speech as, “ speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.” Stengel argued that thoughts that we hate should be protected as long as those thoughts did not incite hate. He used the example of burning a Quran as inciting hate upon an entire group of religious followers. Stengel also completely flipped the value of expression saying that hate speech in fact does not promote tolerance at all.
           In my opinion both of these men bring up valid points. If I could combine parts of both of their arguments that would be where my head is with this entire topic. I think Chermerinsky’s protection of hate speech allows for the more free-flowing version of uncensored ideas. But I do also believe that hate speech in some senses incites and promotes hatred towards certain groups of people. My strongest belief in all of this is that I certainly do not want the government to decide what is hateful and what is not. In a society who bases decision making solely off of feeling I cannot imagine being told what a small group of government officials deems as appropriate and inappropriate.