Just Say No to Hate Speech Laws

The clearest example of American exceptionalism that comes to my mind is freedom of speech. American protection of freedom of speech is clearly superior to the rest of the developed world (especially Europe) because of the absence of hate speech laws in the United States. In Europe and Canada, one can be taken to court for saying things that someone finds insulting or offensive. That would clearly be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The New York Times has an interesting article about the difference between American freedom of speech and so-called freedom of speech in Canada, Australia, and Europe. The article is written with the backdrop of the thoughtcrime trial being brought against the Canadian magazine Maclean's and indirectly the political columnist and author Mark Steyn. The article is quite long, but I want to focus on a certain part of the article.

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

What a surreal and Orwellian statement. "Responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect." Sorry to disappoint, but the state is not the keeper of its citizens. The validity of an opinion should be determined by the individual opinions of a citizenry that has the right to think for itself, not a government that takes for them.

The Europeans are mistaken. They are mistaken because they seem to believe that freedom of speech is a great concept unless of course somebody gets offended. To me, that is nothing but flawed. Speech that is protected should not just be popular and friendly. Speech that is contentious, unpopular, or offensive is no less worthy of protection.

The basic premise of hate speech laws is that people should be protected from offense or insult. Such an idea is patronizing because it asserts that people are too fragile to deal with offense on their own, and that the government needs to step in for the benefit of its people. Sound a bit Stalinist?

Here is a major reason that such speech should be protected. If you outlaw offensive speech, it it would be necessary for the government to determine whether something is offensive. The potential for abuse is infinite. What if the government decides that criticism of the state or government is offensive and threatens the harmony of the state? That is why restrictions on personal liberties should not be done casually or capricious. Personal liberties should be prized as a precious resource and defended as such.

Call me an alarmist, but then take a minute to think whether you're underestimating the ability of people to abuse their power. History is littered with tyrants, petty and otherwise, who took advantage of their environment to organize power for their benefit. It has happened before and will happen again. Don't tempt fate.

Update: The Anchoress has a post responding to this article as well.

You don’t surrender your right to speak freely in some misbegotten effort to legislate “niceness.” To do that is to admit you are too frightened to be free.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

(Hat tip: A Blog for All)