"Hate Speech" Cannot Be Prohibited in a Democracy

The term is an authoritarian tool for censorship, and that's all it is

“The First Amendment's language leaves no room for inference that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." I read "no law . . . abridging" to mean no law abridging.” ~ Hugo Black

Hugo Black was a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and he is as right now as he was then. Congress, and by extension of the 14th Amendment, the states, can make no law abridging free political or religious speech. Period. That is part of what the flag which fluttered over the head of my ancestor symbolized as he fired George Washington’s cannon at Monmouth and Yorktown.

When the US government first started enhancing penalties for crimes that were motivated by hatred towards marginalized groups, to my discredit, I was only marginally bothered. After all, Nazis are hateful people and should be kept down, right?

Then the Obama Administration applied hate speech laws to enhance the sentencing of some fundamentalist Amish who kidnapped and assaulted another Amish person who held beliefs they didn’t like—by shaving his beard, of all things—back in 2011.

Local authorities had already arrested the fundamentalist freak who ordered the assault, this guy…

…but it didn’t occur to them to call it a hate crime. Obama’s Department of Justice, OTOH, wanted to make an example of him, and they did. They sentenced him to 15 years in prison. It’s not that they were truly appalled; they just wanted to see if they could do it, and they did.

Shee-it. There’s rapists and murderers who serve less time, and plenty of rapacious CEOs who never serve any time at all. Yet we are supposed to think that this crazy Amish guy is a greater threat to society than they because the government said he used the wrong kind of speech?

Why yes, we are! It didn’t stop with a few nutty Amish, either. Now, the Federal Government has defined anything “anti-Semitic” as hate speech. Israel and its wealthy backers defined “anti-Semitic” as anything said that they don’t like, and bribed and/or blackmailed Congress and state legislatures to codify their definition into American law.

In a democracy, no political speech, even reprehensible speech uttered by disgusting genocidal maniacs like Zionists and Nazis, can be outlawed without endangering democracy itself. Once a government is allowed to ban any kind of political speech, it will inevitably start trying to ban any speech that contradicts its own narratives or potentially threatens its own power.

What about safety?, I hear. What about the feelings of the members of marginalized groups when they hear nasty things said about them?

Well, what about safety? How do words alone cause any material harm? Free political speech has never given anyone the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater or to call for direct and immediate violent action against an individual.

There are plenty of laws already on the books that outlaw such behavior without crossing the line into censoring political or religious speech, therefore hate speech laws are and always have been superfluous to protecting public safety.

As for your feelings, well,

. Your feelings are less important than the rights of everyone else to say what they believe without fear of being prosecuted by the fucking government. In fact, according to the Bill of Rights they are completely irrelevant.

Congress, the states, the President, the Secretary of State, YOU shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of religion, or of the press…

All laws prohibiting “hate speech,” a concept with as many definitions as there are things that people hate, a concept defined by those who hold power and wish to keep it for themselves, are antidemocratic and authoritarian to their core.

They are tools for the wealthy and the powerful to use to preserve and extend that wealth and power over the rest of us. That is all they are, and all they ever have been.

Hate speech laws have no place in a pluralistic democracy, and anyone who advocates for them does not believe in democracy, much less in individual human rights.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Thank you for reading, good day or night, and good luck.

If you appreciate my scribbling, please share this post and consider becoming a paying subscriber(lowest yearly rate on Substack!) or making a one-time donation by buying me a beer to help me keep scribbling.