Ever since earning a master\u2019s in journalism in 1994, I\u2019ve struggled with whether hate speech is\u2014or should be\u2014protected under the First Amendment. For me, protection of hate speech has never been so black and white as it seems to be for others. Hate speech was briefly discussed in our journalism law class, but back then, fewer people were going on mass public killing sprees, and no one had flown any planes into buildings. So after many years of sitting on the fence, I\u2019m ready to come down on the side of yes-and.<\/p>\n
In my blog about North Korea and the film \u201cThe Interview,\u201d I argued that just because we have the freedom to say whatever we want, doesn\u2019t mean we should. Particularly difficult is this: At what point does having the right to express ourselves impinge on another\u2019s right to not feel harassed? And if we do feel harassed, is it because of our own baggage, or is it because the offending expression is really hate speech with the potential to threaten civil society? I don\u2019t know the answer and apparently neither do a lot of the Western world\u2019s lawmakers. We don\u2019t know because there is no simple answer, despite that many people strongly side one way or the other. Even the United States government struggles with how to define and respond to hate speech. The biggest problem is what might be considered hate speech for one group is considered humor for another. Whose opinion do we go with?<\/p>\n
According to a recent article<\/a> in the Washington Post, France is not exactly a bastion of free speech. For one, Holocaust denial is illegal (but not denial of the Armenian genocide). To quote the article, France has laws \u201ccriminalizing speech that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex or sexual orientation.\u201d The article also mentions how those laws appear to be unequally applied and seemingly not in favor of Muslims.<\/p>\n The American media\u2014and I\u2019m guessing that of many Western European countries\u2014would think twice about the implications of publishing harshly satirical cartoons singling out any specific ethnic group, like Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians, or publishing anything too deeply offensive to Christians or Jews. So why does the Western world seem to think Muslims are fair game?<\/p>\n While many French people stand in unity declaring \u201cJe suis Charlie Hebdo,\u201d millions of French Muslims do not want to be Charlie<\/a> nor want to defend it. Do we tell 5 million French Muslims (and millions more across the globe) to deal with their personal baggage, to get over it, it\u2019s just a joke? Ironically, under French law, some of what Charlie Hebdo<\/em> publishes appears to be illegal, yet French courts sided with the magazine in a charge brought against it for such speech. I disagree with France\u2019s criminalizing hate speech, but I unequivocally support the spirit of the law. <\/p>\n So why defend hate speech? To prevent driving it underground and resurfacing in much more insidious ways. Remember what festering hate led to during WWII? Best to shine a light on issues that have potentially dire consequences for society in profoundly disturbing ways. We can\u2019t begin to heal hatred by refusing to look at it. We can\u2019t outlaw a person\u2019s viewpoint, whether we agree with it or not. But we also can\u2019t just let hateful or hurtful things be stated without addressing the potential consequences.<\/p>\n