Freedom Of Speech: Is Hate Speech A Crime?

Freedom of Speech : Is Hate Speech A Crime?

In the words of  Martin Luther King Jr., “The greatest sin of our time is not the few who has destroyed, but the vast majority who sat idly by.” These words echoed while evaluating the views, knowledge, and evidence given for the consensus of Freedom of Speech and the argument, should Hate Speech be a crime? Although, I strongly am against hate speech of any kind, I am not swayed on the legitimate claim that hate speech should be considered criminal. In saying that, I agree with Kenan Malik when he states that the problem runs deeper than putting more restrictions on what constitutes as hate speech.  Morally, human beings have a responsibility in speech and/or deed to treat each other with some

level of dignity. Laws do not prohibit hate it suppresses it; morally as a society we need to address hate head on, again, in speech, deed, or politically. As a society, we silence our voice, not to mention real change, by imprisoning the voices of those who we morally disagree with, this too is a crime. Before reading the articles I would have argued that hate speech should be a crime, on the premises that I, as well as my ancestors, have been victims of such speech. However, when it comes to freedom of speech, people are morally obligated not lawfully obligated to how they share their beliefs and opinions, with the exception of purposely promoting violence. Throughout history, our judicial system has had the overall inability to stop criminal behavior in individuals, so why does society believe that the same system will be able to prohibit the thoughts and opinions of a man. Making everything lawful is not the answer, it only perpetuates the need for more laws and no need for social responsibility.
    Indeed, the line between hate speech and legitimate unpalatable viewpoints is hard to draw with certainty, clarity, and consistency” (Mark Tatchell). Yet in doing so, hopefully, one is able to clearly articulate the difference between a hate speech and a hate crime. Being able to distinguish between the two does not justify either, rather it gives us some basis on how to address each situation accurately.  In an interview with Peter Molnar and  Kenan Malik, there was an example given: what happens when members of a minority group would like to enter a restaurant and someone vehemently tells the security guard at the door that those people should not be allowed in. Kenan stated that an individual who advocates such discrimination may be morally despicable but it should not be held to have committed a legal offense. The security guard, however, and the establishment that discriminates should be answerable to the law. In  a more complex case, whereas the Westboro Baptist picketed the 2011 military funeral of a soldier, who was killed in Iraq, with signs that carried such messages as “thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” the line between speech and a crime may be harder to distinguish.  In this particular case, the father of the dead soldier sued the church but the lawsuit verdict was not in his favor. Needless to say, the Supreme Court ruled that the church’s expressed their discontent with “matters of public concern,” rather than outright targeting the soldier and his family directly. Although this may be true, the family of the soldier felt their personal right to bury their son in private was violated by these protestors. In this particular case, the court, as well as the father of this soldier has to question such things as: is a military funeral considered private or open to the public?  The response to the question does not excuse the actions of the protesters who used poor funeral etiquette, but it clearly defines whether their actions were criminal or not.
    The FBI defines hate crime as: “a criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties (FBI.GOV).

The word hate itself, morally, evokes disconcerting emotions, but hate itself is not criminal. Comparatively speaking, neither is hate speech. Hate speech is defined as speech that is intended to offend, insult, intimidate, or threaten an individual or group based on a trait or attribute, such as sexual orientation, religion, color, gender, or disability. This type of speech, again, may evoke disconcerting emotions but it is not a criminal offense rather a moral one. Morally, we have a responsibility, to regulate our expression of speech by disallowing defamation of character, perjury, blackmail, true threats, solicitations to commit crimes, incitement of violence, or obscenity, which are the types of speech not protected by the first amendment (Newseum

Institute).  
    Throughout history, moral responsibility played a significant role in impacting our world, bringing about change. The issue of morality, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is it seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either
descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Either definition, assumes some level of responsibility for a system of standards that is used to produce honest, good, and ethical results.

Foundationally, the need for morality is essential in order for society to work and establish a level of decency towards another human being. In 1863, many Americans harnessed their moral authority and, united in a march to Washington DC led by  Dr. Martin Luther Kings Jr and other leaders in the fight to raise public consciousness of racism, and to end racial discrimination in the United States. Dr. King, civil rights activist, declared in the great I Have a Dream speech:  "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children." Dr. King, was not only a civil rights activist, but a great strategist, his words and non-violent approach compelled people, regardless of race, to stand up and fight against injustice and discrimination of any kind.  What if Martin Luther King Jr., along with other activist, idly sat back in hope that the same judicial system, which endorsed the laws they were trying to dismantle, finally realized the error of their

ways?

    Throughout history, change occurred in our nation, as well as our government when people used their moral authority in the face of great injustice.  President Barack Obama quoted, “ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”   The responsibility of the treatment of others does not begin and end with the law (Self control).  It is when a people no longer tolerate hate driven injustice on an individual or any group of people based off of race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation. In an article written by James Kirchick, “If You Want to Combat Hate, Don’t Outlaw Hate Speech- Counter It With Better Ideas,” he highlights the case of Frank Kameny, an Army astronomer fired from the government in 1957 for his sexual orientation. Kameny used the constitutional right-namely the freedom of speech and assemble-to sway public opinion to the point where the majority of Americans began to stand up for the rights of gays in America, which resulted in gays being opening accepted.  It is important to note, the law did not fight for Frank Kameny, in fact, he took his case to court and lost. Yet, despite his defeat, Kameny became  the first openly gay person to run for Congress. His stand, along with the support of many other homosexuals and hedersexuals alike, played a crucial role in getting the federal prohibition on gay employment lifted in 2009. Again, it was the rallying of the people, using same right to free speech, to bring about change in the face of injustice.
    Politically speaking, the First Amendment has been used, in contrast,  to fight against as well as highlight the cruelty of hate speech in the public eye. It is because of free speech, hate speech included, that  has exposed and challenged the moral compass of our nation. In the same interview mentioned earlier, Kenan Malik states, “ Much of what we call hate speech consists, of claims that may be contemptible but yet are accepted by man as morally defensible.” Again, morality is the key rebuttal when it comes to what is considered as hate speech. Kenan goes on to say “ I am wary of the arguments are so immoral they can simply being condemned without being contested. Such, blanket condemnations are often a cover for the inability or unwillingness politically to challenge obnoxious sentiments.” To strongly disagree with someone’s hateful speech is to either tolerate it or strategically dissect it, challenge it, and hopefully obliterate its ability to promote violence or discriminate against the targeted individual or group of people. The law can no longer be society’s scapegoat preventing us from using our moral authority in order to hold people morally responsible for how they treat another human being with dignity because they are human above race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
    In short, there will always be unfavorable views and opinions across the globe that we will have to tolerate. On the other hand, there will be intolerable hate speech that we can not sit idly by, and do nothing. There has to be a balance free speech and hateful taunting, but the responsibility falls on every human being not the law itself. As reprehensible as it may be,  a person or persons has the right to hate another person despite the rationale. However, one is morally responsible for the approach used to express their discontent, especially when it directly relates to the treatment of another human being. We should be grief-stricken at the notion that the law should be responsible for our moral. If hate speech is considered criminal then all speech is subject to such scrutiny.  It is a never-ending debate, instead of criminalizing hate speech, we should in deed and/or using free speech to challenge it with the simplicity of morality, treating others they way we ourselves would like to be treated.”