| sapphi_snake said: First of all, I'm surprised that hate speech doesn't exist as a legal concept in the US. Second of all, what's the justification for banning the speech you mentioned? "Offensive" shouldn't cut it, unless it's applied indiscriminately to assure harmony within the institution or something. Third of all, hate speech laws are quire necessary to protect minorities from majorities (talked more about it in my previous). |
It should be pretty obvious why slander and so-called fighting words (threats, incitement of violence, etc.) are illegal. Obscenity is a pretty vague concept, but it basically boils down to protecting the virgin eyes and ears of children. If it can be successfully argued that something has serious artistic merit (which is seemingly pretty much anything these days), someone can usually beat an obscenity charge, but the very concept almost seems designed to chill speech.
I think the same can be said for hate speech. Even if hate speech laws are drafted with the very best of intentions, they are incredibly susceptible to abuse. Look at Canada's creepily Orwellian Human Rights Commission, before which a columnist named Mark Steyn was hauled to answer for... writing unflattering things about Muslims, basically. The thing to which they took greatest offense turned out to have been some line about how Muslims are "breeding like mosquitoes" in European countries, but that was a direct quote from a Norwegian imam, Mullah Krekar. So Steyn skated, but the whole thing sort of puts all Canadians on notice: careful what you say about Muslims. Even perfectly moderate, politically disengaged Canadians are bound to resent the fact that there is essentially a double standard regarding what you can say about, say, the average white Protestant Canadian and what you can say about Muslims. So the very laws that are meant to help bring people together only serve to drive a bigger wedge between them and otherize Canadian Muslims more than all the hate speech in the world ever could.
