Mike Steinman

Opinion contributor

Words are not innocuous, but matter. Symbols are not innocuous, but matter. Words and

symbols are interchangeable, thus words as symbols matter. Unfortunately, this deduction is never more evident than in the casual vernacular of "white supremacy," both self-referenced and indicated by others outside this group.

Other than in the delusional rationalization of those self-labeling as "white supremacists," there is not an iota of anything supreme in these ignorant,

racist, hate-mongers. To use the colloquial saying, "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck." The white "supremacist" is anything but supreme.

Danger comes when we allow free expression to foolishly be justified as carte blanche First Amendment protection, despite such expression violating any standard of common decency – simply it is intuitive that outlawing such expression serves a greater justice than allowing such expression to persist unchecked and protected under the guise of the U.S. Constitution. For absolutists in interpreting the First Amendment as being unconditional, the intent should be that language is liberating, not debilitating. For the white supremacist such language, as well as reference to white supremacy, is liberating. Conversely, the target (victims) of hateful rhetoric is not liberated.

Forbid us from usurping the freedom of white supremacy to be aired on television, radio, the internet, print, clothing, billboards, and any other medium to disseminate putrid hate; this argument being the weak appeal to relativism that "who is to deem what should and should not be appropriate for an audience to consume." Further, those advocating unfettered expression by all would claim that "denying free expression to any party takes us down a slippery slope which will ensue in complete censorship."

First, this is not a binary proposition and at worst a false dichotomy, in that common-sense censorship per situation does not entail a massacre of all language and its distribution.

Second, there is also a counter slippery slope that "if you allow any form of language in any medium toward any audience, will there be no filter to stop the egregious

use of language as a weapon." Words can hurt. Words can harm. Words can kill. This certainly does not constitute the positive association with "supremacy," but only its perversion.

Use of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender epithets do harm, for which no academic defense can be made other than opening up the public marketplace of ideas, however vile. But as any market can divest of that which is prima facie a detriment, shouldn't the greatest marketplace – the public forum – be able to divest of any language which exists solely to advocate violence toward a group at best, and elimination of a group at worst? As such, this is not speech to be protected and certainly not "supreme" speech.

How can we tell if these unmentionable words of hate harm? Look at intent. If the words and accompanying symbols are used solely for the purpose to infuriate, instigate, and demean a group based on that group's demographic makeup, then this is not language that betters society. Further, but for the dissemination of such language, would there be a reaction ending in violence? If a probable causal link can be detected between language and physical and/or psychological harm to others, then such language should not be permitted.

Returning to what was said at the outset, is the casual identification of white supremacists by media and society at large a tool which empowers these miscreants? Is hate language legitimized by using the reference "white supremacist?" Such vernacular as "supreme" gives this group the unearned credence they justify and perpetuate.

The Random House College Dictionary, an unbiased source, defines "supreme" as: "Highest in rank or authority; of the highest quality, degree, character."

Do so-called white supremacists exemplify these characteristics, let alone come near to having these traits?

Further, this group uses the term "supremacy" to indicate it is supreme. The aforementioned dictionary defines a supremacist as "a person

who believes in or advocates the supremacy of a particular group." If the myth of supremacy is bought into, or at least not banished, does this implicitly give legitimacy to this hate group? Belief and advocacy do not necessarily constitute objective truth, let alone supremacy.

We have been fortunate that history has allowed for challenges to and corrections of ignorance, be it ignorance of ignorance or self-cultivated ignorance. Our first start in discrediting the racists, haters of specific faiths, homophobes, ethno-centrists, demagogues and any other deleterious group is to deny them the undeserved moniker of "supreme" or "supremacist." Find a worthy substitute, like "purveyors of ignorance and hate" or "negative human mutations."

But, then the worry is that these people might not be the mutation or exception to the rule. Hopefully, those who advocate wanton evil are the inferior exception.