Racism, bigotry and intolerance are alive and well.

We’d like to think that these words aren’t used anymore but they are. Many of us choose not to use them though, because they are representative of a time when we didn’t know any better, a time we want to remain in the past. The world hasn’t become more ‘politically correct’, it’s that more people are trying to be better to other people, even those they don’t know. Leaving these words and many others like them behind is evidence that our society is progressing forward. It is progressing because people who were once labelled with these words used to be thought of as ‘less than’, and while it will be a long road to equality, at least there is movement.

With the recent agreements by major tech firms to abide by anti-hate speech legislation in the EU, there has been a lot of discussion around the issue, which can be extremely nuanced, but only when approached from a certain perspective.

Anti-hate speech legislation, simply put, is in place to ensure that individuals and groups of individuals from any walk of life are protected from public degradation, vilification and (here’s the important part) speech that may incite violence against them.

As everything we say online is now public, the EU has enacted laws, which the big tech firms are now supporting that, yes, censors this type of speech in a public space. The ‘C’ word that everyone seems to be up in arms about is a touchy subject. Censorship is something that happens everywhere. Films are censored, TV is censored, the news is censored so we don’t see footage of war zones, textbooks are censored and rewritten, and yes our beloved social media sites are censored because private companies own the content we post to them. Censorship is something we live with on a daily basis, and our society is not crumbling.

Why censor hate speech?

The reason for this is a public safety issue and a human progress issue. If vilifying people from a certain background through hate speech was made illegal, then acts of violence towards those people would decrease with the added bonus that their collective cultural identity is more valued within society. It is about setting an example of how others should be treated and setting an expectation of mutual respect between citizens of all colors and creeds.

We have almost 3000 years of recorded history that demonstrates this link between speech and acts of violence and war.

The Arguments

Argument: Words don’t hurt people. People hurt people.

While this is technically true, the argument itself ignores the simple fact that words and actions are inextricably linked. We don’t look at a motivational poster with a kitten on it and feel motivated because of the image of the kitten. The words motivate us, they spur us into action.

Yes, but there’s such a thing as personal responsibility. If I engage in hate speech, I can’t be responsible for what others do.

Sorry, but yes you can. The easiest example of this goes back to post-World War I Germany. What effect do you think a certain German Politician’s words had on the disenfranchised citizens that heard him speak? Germany was suffering in ways that only Germans at that time could understand. Blaming others for the woes of the masses is a simple thing to do, and that’s what happened. An opinion was expressed, an unpopular opinion amongst many, a popular opinion amongst others, but those words led to action and that action led to something we should never allow to be repeated.

Responsibility for violence and vocal incitement of that violence through the degradation of others cannot be separated. Speech degrading or vilifying a people may cause some to take up arms or fists against those people, and ignoring that there is a link between the two is the same as ignoring any other cause and effect. A dog is provoked and bites someone. A xenophobic speech about a certain group of people is made, and these people become the victims of violence. There is a cause and effect, when people are encouraged and validated in their anger towards an out-group, they are now justified in their actions towards them. This is why we stop saying words that hurt other people. By continuing to use those words we are validating that they are TRUE facts, that those people are less than we are.

Personal responsibility always has and always will apply to the person committing the act of violence AND EQUALLY to the person engaging in hate speech.

A person can CHOOSE to attack another person, just as a person can CHOOSE not to degrade or call for violence against another person. Better yet, a person can CHOOSE to stand up and let those engaging in hate speech know that they’re on the wrong side of history, and that these ideas are archaic and unwelcome.

We can do this on social media, and we can also do this collectively as a nation by enacting legislation to serve as an example of how we are progressing as a nation or society, and how much we tolerate intolerance.

Argument: I don’t have to agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

This argument comes from a very hypothetical and disconnected place.

Let’s say you don’t support an idea, but you support the right to express that idea. Let’s talk about inaction and complicity.

If you’re willing to let someone engage in hate speech and then say to them “yes, go ahead, continue to do that, I personally don’t mind and we as a society don’t mind”, what role do you now play in any subsequent degradation or violence that others suffer at the hand of these ideas. It is only through opposition to archaic ideas that a society moves forward. This is again why we don’t use certain words we used ten, fifty or one hundred years ago.

A change in our vocabulary and how we express our ideas benefit the lives of fellow citizens, by making them feel safer, more at home, part of our communities, and more importantly valued equally.

Argument: Criticism is being labelled as hate speech so we shouldn’t have hate speech legislation

In any justice system, there are many cases which are brought forth that either don’t apply, are misrepresented, misinterpreted or judged in a flawed manner. This argument is simply stating the obvious and could be reworded as ‘The Justice system is flawed’.

Most human societies have laws that state that murder is illegal, and many times innocent people are found guilty of this crime. This is unfortunate, but as a rule, we know that is illegal to murder someone, so how many lives are saved, and how many are wrongfully convicted?

The argument that all speech that is healthy criticism of a system of belief, system of government or serves as satire will be considered hate speech is basically saying “there is no hope for our legal or justice system at all, so let’s not even try”.

If this is your argument, have faith in your justice system, because it works better than you think it does.

Argument: What’s next? Thought police.

These hate speech laws that already exist around the world cover public speech and published word, not private, so what you say in your home or in private correspondence does not apply. Argument over.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Words will never hurt me? Bullshit.

Why do we all know this phrase? Its intent is to bring to the forefront the fact that WORDS HURT people, and that we should be strong in the face of hurtful, degrading words targeted as ourselves, our friends, family and I would hope, strangers as well.

Free Speech and Hate speech

Many arguments around the idea of hate speech involve freedom of speech. These two terms are woven together to the point where it becomes very confusing.

From an American standpoint, freedom of speech is at the core of what America is as a culture. It is the First Amendment to the Constitution, and under legal terms does allow for hate speech, and in fact, protects it. When hate speech is protected under the law, where does that leave those who are the victims of hate speech and the violence it is linked to?

Hate speech is not really about the law though. It’s about allowing people to be told they are less than, that they don’t deserve what the have, that they don’t matter. In more extreme cases, it calls for violence, it wrongfully labels ethnicities, followers of a certain faith, age groups or gender identities.

Hate speech and the limiting of it is one measure of how we tolerate intolerance. Do we allow intolerance to be protected, and by extension validated so that generation after generation we still have problems such as systemic racism, punishment for sexual preference or forced conversion of religion? Or do we trust that the systems we have in place to protect our rights won’t be trampled upon.

Much of this argument is about trust. Americans are inherently distrustful of government. It is simply a part of their culture. In many other countries, even those in the European Union, their citizens do trust their governments and support anti-hate speech legislation, because they care more about sparing the suffering of others than the right to say horrible things about them.

What do you care more about?