I shouldn't just take one side of the issue here. The argument against hate speech is that it propogates the hateful ideas. And this is true psychologically. Most people, the more they hear something, the more they adopt that view (it is not true among skeptics, but skeptics are a small proportion of society). And so this is a valid argument in favor of supressing hate speech.
But it has to be considered in balance with the other arguments. How much does one person's hateful racist view impact listeners to adopt that view? How much does it depower their anger? How much pushback against the idea is there? In some situations, usually echo chambers, hateful ideas just tend to grow stronger.
But I'm still mssively in favor of drawing legal distinctions at 'actions', not words, because it is far too oppressive and dangerous to start legislating words where there are no clear cut boundaries that prevent the government from going too far, and where interpretation and context matters immensely.
Yup
If hate speech is responsible for hate acts
Speech supporting anything that is currently illegal is a crime
"robbing banks is cool" is responsible for bank robberies
Hollywood is responsible for gang violence
It can't be any other way
"Bring down the government"
Crime
If speech is partly liable the act must have a corresponding *decrease* in criminal liability ... but that hasn't been reflected in any law
Most laws require demonstration of opportunity, ability and intent
The contradictions are immense
I appreciate the balanced take. Personally I do believe silencing people or opinions will breed anger, frustration, paranoia, and violence.
One of the best ways to ensure someones self alienation is to hand them a mic and let them say exactly what they think.
If someone's obvious bigotted hatred is seen in the light of day it will make them much easier to understand and avoid. However if they have a constructive point to make, someone in their percieved opposition will have a chance to reflect on what was said.
Daryl Davis said something like, as long as enemies are talking, even if its hate speech, they aren't fighting. Keeping the communication lines open is super important.
I think it's not just about balance.
The fact that an immoral idea can be spread should never, in a democracy, be an argument against whatever it is that spreads it.
That's because it's the people that are the ultimate authority and listening and spreading ideas is part of that process.
If the government pass a law to decide what idea can't be allowed, this is against democracy. And even if almost all of the population agrees with this norm, approving it would, similarly to electing a dictator, hamper democracy for future generations, who didn't get to participate in that decision.
The limit to democracy shouldn't be freedom of speech. It should be destroying democracy itself.
Oddbean new post about login | logout