{"id":3424,"date":"2015-06-23T00:01:12","date_gmt":"2015-06-23T05:01:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/?p=3424"},"modified":"2015-06-24T08:48:40","modified_gmt":"2015-06-24T13:48:40","slug":"hate-speech-must-be-free-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/2015\/06\/23\/hate-speech-must-be-free-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"Hate speech must be free speech"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week<\/a> I argued\u00a0that the Confederate flags\u00a0have\u00a0been symbols of racism and oppression from the day\u00a0they were first conceived. Yesterday,\u00a0Ta-Nehisi Coates made a similar case, in significantly more detail:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/twitter.com\/tanehisicoates\/status\/613169672331087872<\/p>\n

This fairly well\u00a0settles whether Confederate symbolism is rightfully considered oppressive\u00a0and racist.\u00a0What I’ve been seeing on my feeds of late, though, are posts from self-identified progressives who have claimed that so-called “hate speech” ought not be considered legally protected speech. I’m not going to source these (there is no need for a\u00a0public shaming) but here are a few recent examples:<\/p>\n

The next time someone tell you that the Confederate Flag is Free Speech tell them no its a Symbol of Racism!
\n\u2014 AC<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This isn’t speech, it’s meant to be intimidating. That flag is a flag of slavery and terrorism, lynchings, rapes, and numerous atrocities were committed by lovers of that flag. What does it say about our political system when we allow our weakest to be intimidated by the strongest?
\n\u2014 NW<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

1st amendment does not allow hate speech. Difference between free speech & hate speech.
\n\u2014 MN<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You get the idea. If some given act of speech is considered hateful, then said\u00a0speech must\u00a0not deserve legal protection. And here is where I must part ways with my “progressive” fellow travelers. The whole point of legally protected speech is to prevent the government from manipulating the electorate by deciding that some\u00a0ideas must be considered not merely socially\u00a0taboo but also\u00a0punishable\u00a0at\u00a0law.<\/p>\n

\"Sons<\/a>
Sons of Confederate Veterans on the march in Oklahoma City, June 19th 2015<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The entire point of free speech laws is to protect unpopular speech, seeing as generally popular ideas will not be attacked by those\u00a0who hope to retain power in a democratic system. On the off chance that a small minority has more defensible views\u00a0than the general public, constitutional guarantees of free speech are designed to ensure that those\u00a0ideas\u2014however unpopular\u2014have\u00a0the opportunity to compete in a free\u00a0marketplace, without being squelched\u00a0by majoritarian\u00a0laws designed to preserve\u00a0orthodox thinking<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Imagine, if you will, two flags. The first is stitched from silkscreens of the most controversial Charlie Hebdo<\/a> covers, the second is one of the\u00a0more\u00a0widely-known Confederate designs. In both cases, some people would fly the flag\u00a0proudly, others would burn it to demonstrate\u00a0their opposition, and still others would declare it hate speech and try to have it banned by law.\u00a0It is only that third group which I oppose.<\/p>\n

If there are any\u00a0principled arguments in favor of preventing government interference with speech which would protect\u00a0unpopular blasphemous or irreligious speech but not unpopular hateful\u00a0or racist speech, I would be interested in hearing\u00a0them. Until then, I’m going to err on the side of untrammeled free expression, for even the worst of ideas.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week I argued\u00a0that the Confederate flags\u00a0have\u00a0been symbols of racism and oppression from the day\u00a0they were first conceived. Yesterday,\u00a0Ta-Nehisi Coates…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":3421,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-free-speech","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3424"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3424\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3426,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3424\/revisions\/3426"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3421"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}