The Harm In Hate Speech By Jeremy Waldron

The Case Against Censorship

Under the first amendment of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers granted and promised all citizens of the United States of America the right to free speech. Free speech may seem like it only covers the most obvious form of the phrase; it allows the people to say anything they wish to say. In actuality, free speech headlines a broad category of rights. For instance, by being guaranteed the freedom of speech, the American people are also granted the freedom to write what they wish to write, criticize the government without repercussion, participate in symbolic speech, and protest political issues (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts N. pag.). Typically, it can be observed that the people as a whole accept the

There are many who argue that censorship is needed in order to protect citizens from discriminatory and inflammatory speech. In the book The Harm in Hate Speech by Jeremy Waldron, the author writes that, “Hate speech is speech, no doubt; but not all forms of speech or expression are licit, even in America...” (Waldron 14). Based on Waldron’s theory, there are some types of speech that are prohibited even under the Constitution. He establishes that merely offending a person does not go against the First Amendment but attacking one’s dignity should be unlawful (Waldron 15). This premise was the basis for the Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam. In the case, Simon Tam wanted to register a trademark for his band The Slants, which the Patent and Trademark Office denied (Supreme Court of the United States 1). They felt it violated the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946 because it belittled a racial community (Supreme Court of the United States 1). Unfortunately for Waldron’s theory, however, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tam, saying that speech cannot be banned simply because it may offend a group of people (Supreme Court of the United States 1-2). (188

Instead of shutting down ideas that may oppose and offend, the people should in actuality hold up all ideas to strict scrutiny. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson expressed this idea in a 1814 letter to bookseller N.G. Dufief when concerned with the censorship of religious books (Jefferson 340). Jefferson wrote, “If M. de Becourt’s book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God’s sake, let us freely hear both sides if we choose” (Jefferson 340). He is also quoted as saying, “I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, as fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate” (Jefferson 340). To solve the issue of censorship, the American people should be ready to debate and argue their views rather than silence opinions that may offend them. The United States of America was founded on a democratic principle, in which debate and compromise must work together in order for representatives to make the best possible choices for the nation longterm. Every single citizen will never fully agree with the rest; it is impossible in such a diverse country as the United States of America. A differing of opinions and the occasional offending of certain groups,