Hate is a terrible emotion…but not always. Don’t we all agree (most of us anyway) that it’s acceptable to hate evil? Mercy, there are some people in the political class who apparently hate “hate.” It is a sad chapter in human affairs that people have historically hated and made scapegoats of certain classes and populations. Certainly there are cases when individuals for reasons either real or imagined have nourished a burning hate about another person. My personal view is that hate toward another person or group is a wasted nonproductive emotion. It often distracts one from a true purpose, and frequently leads to enormous errors of judgment.
Overt manifestations of hateful behavior should be proscribed by the state and social convention. People should not be allowed to damage the persons and property of others unless they have been directly threatened and provoked. On the other hand the state and the community at large should not be able to define which speech is hateful. Perhaps it’s denigrating or insulting, but the state cannot discern the motivation for the offensive language. The concept of “hate speech” is an artificial construct that is determined solely by the person, group or entity who designs the definition. While there may be some social penalty (banishment, spurning, ostracizing) for speech that may be considered hateful, the state has no legitimate stake in the restriction of expression. That will not stop them however. Certainly many of you have heard those who wish to limit speech cite the “can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” example. The Justice Potter Stewart opinion stated that it would be improper to “FALSELY” shout fire. In other words when one falsely creates an alarm that can result in damage to persons and property, then the shouter has overstepped the bounds of acceptable expression.
Using uncivil language such as “idiot” or “bonehead” cannot and must not be circumscribed. Neither of the terms, or others similar to them, generates an aura of impending harm, nor do they threaten the targeted person or his property. So-called violent, incendiary or inflammatory language exists in a similar realm. If uttered in a vacuum, no one knows, and no one reacts. If shouted in a crowd, then those who take violent action that harms another are responsible…not the speaker. If I were to read “Hamlet” aloud, and some unstable clown who was listening later attempted an assassination, would I be guilty of inciting a murder attempt? Would William Shakespeare and I share a cell? Should Quentin Tarantino be banned from producing material that could incite violence? The utterance and the film are not guilty of damaging property or persons. The perpetrator is. Many of us from time to time have had wicked thoughts cross our minds, but we refrain from acting on them. That is responsible and civilized behavior. Speakers should not be held accountable when unstable listeners leap into action.
Mind reading by government agents is even more insidious that their regulation of speech. If someone commits a heinous crime, and the all-knowing, all-seeing bureaucracy determines that the criminal was motivated by hate, then the penalty becomes more severe. Huh? If you’ve ever spent a lot of time with someone you hold dear, you might have been asked the following questions: “Do you love me?” “Are you certain that you really love me?” The questions come from someone with whom you’ve spent innumerable hours and shared a plethora of intimate secrets, and yet, they entertain doubt about your affection. So, pray tell, how can some lower- or middle-grade bureaucrat detect what was in your mind or your heart when you commit the unlawful act? The Amazing Kreskin couldn’t do it. The lie-detecting dude on television couldn’t do it. Maybe your spouse couldn’t do it, but just in case they can know what’s on your mind and in your heart, they do not have to testify against you.
For me the concept of hate crimes is hateful. I hate the speech police, and I loathe, despise and abhor the thought police. The bozo’s who promote this type of control must not be aware of an action called “venting.” They wish to tamp our free expression to the point where it might explode. They will hate the outcome.
Agreed. Never quite understood the concept of 'hate' crimes.
ReplyDelete