Why the Censorship of Hate Speech is Immoral in an American Society
In this paper I will argue that it is immoral to censor hate speech in an American society, due to the infringements on your rights and the dangers of removing speech. I will do this by applying the principle of greatest liberty from social contract theory and the principle of utility from utilitarianism.
In America, the bill of rights is a fundamental set of rights that you have as an American. The first right guaranteed in the bill of rights is the freedom of speech, press, and religion. They define the first amendment as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution, amend. 1) While the first amendment is not universal, few exceptions being; fighting words, defamatory statements, child porn, etc. There is an ongoing debate about the rise in hate speech and what types of censorship would be viable in a free speech society. Although you can argue the definition of hate speech, hate speech can be defined as “language which expresses strong hatred, intolerance, or contempt for a social group and is often meant to degrade or dehumanize.” (Easley, Lecture notes, Week 10)
An issue that is presented with hate speech is that it can indirectly be an insight into violence if someone were to misinterpret your words. The most extreme examples, usually being someone's race, sex, gender, or identity. In Lawrence’s Racist Speech as the fundamental equivalent of fighting words, he gives the example of “Hate speech used in face-to-face insults falls within the “fighting words” exception to First Amendment protection. (Lawrence) This is especially detrimental to POC and disproportionately affected groups. Hearing slurs in a face-to-face altercation is “the equivalent to getting slapped in the face” (Lawrence) The thing that would make the most sense would be to ban slurs of any kind, but congress may not do that under your first amendment protections. A solution that is viable for this situation would be to increase speech tenfold. Speech can come from a place of ignorance in a lot of instances.
At first, people would turn their back on the thought of speaking to people that hurt them, but after time, the speech will open itself up and allow people to settle their differences in a more humane way. Mill Argued “”free expression” has a crucial societal, as well as personal, function and benefit” (Easley, Lecture Notes, Week 10) and this has stood the test of time as free speech is the most fundamental right, next to life.
The first thing that I have in support of my claim is that we have the principle of the Greatest Liberty, from Social Contract Theory. The theory claims that “each person should have an equal right to the most extensive freedoms possible without infringing on the systemic freedom of others” (Easley, Lecture Notes, Week 10) With this principle, it allows everyone to enjoy the same rights as one another but also means that citizens have the freedom to say what they please without the interference of someone who disagrees. For the American citizen, the Principle of Greatest liberty and the first amendment go hand-in-hand.
The importance of having hate speech is that it is partially a form-of-expression, and in a free society, who is to determine what is hateful and what is not? In Nazi Germany, freedom of speech was soon to fall after the ban of hate speech. Starting from Hitler's inability to handle jokes and criticism, he soon made his voice the voice of reason. The ban of Hate speech surely set a slippery slope for a disaster. As argued by Lawrence, “The peculiar evil in silencing the expression of an opinion is that of robbing the human race” (Lawrence)
Allowing hate speech isn’t an attempt to lead an attack on “marginalized” groups or to promote verbal attacks. It is to promote the overall freedom of your rights and make sure that everyone has the right to speak freely. Using hate speech as an excuse to censor what someone is saying is a direct violation of the Principle of Greatest liberty. The principle of greatest liberty allows everyone to enjoy the same right to the same extent, and censoring certain speech can be a direct violation of everyone having the same right to freedom of speech.
The second point that I would like to make that supports my claim is with the Principle of Utility, from Utilitarianism. I’ll further prove that hate speech is essential to a functioning society by promoting total free speech. The principles definition is “that principle which approves or disapproves of every action according to the action’s tendency to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, OR, equivalently, to prevent mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness for the affected persons” (Easley, Lecture Notes, Week 10) This principle is as important as the last one because this directly ties into how having those freedoms will affect people in said society. Hate speech being a protected form of speech is adding to the benefit of a society because you give people the freedom to express themselves and say whatever comes to mind. This benefits the good of society as a whole, because if you live in a society where you are afraid to say something, you are living with the mind state of fear, not freedom.
While understanding the posing risks of having hate speech in a society, you need to look at who it can affect and why. In John Arthurs Sticks and Stones he argues that “the claim is not that speech itself directly caused the harm, but it instead encouraged attitudes in people, who then, on their own, acted wrongly and harmed others” (Arthur) This is important because it plays off of the old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” and is saying that it is not words that made someone act out, but it was that person using a mixture of their emotions and freewill. This way of thinking about it is an attempt to remove power from words, because they are just words. Being in America, being the most diverse country on the planet, you will hear things that are unappealing and are hurtful. The right to emotional protection does not trump someone else's right to speech, one reason being you can not measure emotional harm. The first amendment already has exceptions for its use, and with adding one more exception (hate speech) it becomes a slippery slope for a society where citizens do not know what they can and can’t say. Then once people get upset, it lead to riots and protests, and with the removal of certain protections, those actions could now be unprotected ways of speech, there is no way to ban hate speech without causing other issues to your rights as an American. In the case hate speech, and if it should be allowed or not “the answer is the same in each case: nobody has the right to demand government protect them from distress when doing so would violate others’ rights” (Arthur) With the wellbeing of a society like America on the line, keeping one of our most beloved and fundamental rights the same as we know it would be the best course of action to not get civil unrest.
In conclusion, I argued that because of the importance of speech and the precedent America has set with its freedom of speech laws, it is an immoral action to ban hate speech in America.
