A white supremacist wants to advocate his political views on a billboard in a majority African-American neighborhood. A neo-Nazi group wants to march in a city with a large number of Holocaust survivors. A conservative Christian passes out literature denouncing the legitimacy of gay marriage outside of a wedding chapel. Are these actions examples of hate speech? If so, should they be legally permitted according to Mill? Is he correct? What should the state do about speech that discriminates or preaches intolerance?
According to Mill, these actions would not qualify as hate speech however they are not above any repercussions. Mill states, ". The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. Here Mill is stating that although these actions do not violate the rights of any other citizens however they can all be hurtful to others. The things they are preaching are prejudicial and are deserving of judgment from society but not by the law. But he states that from there society can decide how these people are seen, perceived, and judged by the people in society due to their harmful speech. However, there should not be a restriction on what these people say. But they must know that there can be social consequences if they do say these things. I would say I mostly agree with what Mill is saying here. No laws are saying having racist or homophobic beliefs is illegal. You are allowed to say what you want. But if society does not think what you say is moral they can judge you accordingly. However, I do think in situations that involve white supremacist groups there the main purpose is based on a hatred of a group of people. Sometimes those words of hatred lead to hateful actions that actually would violate the rights of those people. I think these people are free to speak their minds but the state should have the right to monitor their behavior to ensure they don't begin to turn to violence or other crimes against the people they speak against.
ReplyDeleteWith no laws in the USA substantiating the definition of “hate speech”, it is hard to categorize situations into such a binary system. In the situations given above however, I would argue that all three of them have a hateful intention, but hateful is not grounds for censorship. Take for example I say “I hate cold weather”, is that hate speech? You might say “that’s not even comparable”, but what if I said that to someone that loved colder weather. Would that not be hurtful or outrageous in their eyes? What about the difference between saying “I hate white supremacists” vs. “I hate the BLM movement”…is one of these inherently more or less hateful than the other? I would assume that many of you would respond with “yes because white supremacy is bad and BLM is good”, but says who? There are many people in the USA that would say the opposite. So who’s right? This is the crux of Mill’s argument. Mill adamantly believed that this speech (and nearly all speech at that) should be allowed in a free society, even if society deems it hateful. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill writes, “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race…If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” (Mill 16). Here Mill expresses that allowing opinions and speech of all sorts ultimately aids society more than it hurts it, regardless of how unaccepted, hateful, or obscure these opinions may be. Additionally, Mill explains that the government has no grounds to determine what is right and what is wrong because there is always the possibility of censuring the truth. By not censuring anything, you allow society to function freely and come to their own opinions of right and wrong. I am 100% in agreeance with this philosophy. I believe that the instant that the government says “you can’t say that” or “you can’t believe that”, all personal liberties are lost. The first amendment is the first for a reason. Because of this, I believe that the state should do absolutely nothing about censuring hate speech. Now, this does not mean that politicians should/can not denounce these hateful words and opinions, but they should not legislate any censorship. It’s a lofty task to find a successful country in history that imposed strict censorship on it’s citizens. I believe that although this hate should not be punished on a legal level, I believe it should absolutely reap societal consequences. We see this in modern times with the so called “cancel culture”. Although sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes, the mob mentality of imposing a societal punishment upon someone for past or present hate is a relatively efficient way to deter hate. If you’re a vocal KKK member, good luck getting a job in corporate America. If you’re an outspoken white supremacist, good luck getting into any college. If you make a homophobic joke, good luck not getting kicked out of Hawken. I believe that these societal punishments should undoubtedly be encouraged under the correct circumstances. However, just as Mill would also argue, saying something hateful should never, under any circumstances, result in a punishment imposed by the government.
ReplyDelete