Free Speech vs. Hate Speech

I was recently invited to participate in a panel discussion over the subject of “free speech.”  Among the subtopics on the agenda are those of the Confederate monument controversy and the relationship between free speech and “hate speech.”

My schedule forced me to decline the invitation.  However, even had this not been the case, I probably would’ve declined at any rate.  The description of the discussion, you see, makes it clear that its organizers assume, first of all, that the distinction between “free speech” and “hate speech” is a meaningful one.  In doing so, they presuppose as well the meaningfulness of the concept of “hate speech.”

Those who make these assumptions beg the question.  These presuppositions themselves should be subject to discussion.

Is there really such a thing as “hate speech”?

If so, is there a non-arbitrary or effectively objective set of criteria for establishing it?

What is hate?

Is so-called “hate speech” of a different species than free speech?

Buy Gold at Discounted Prices

If “hate speech” is not of a different species than free speech, and if the latter is something to be valued and protected, then why even bother mentioning “hate speech?”

If “hate speech” is a different species than free speech, then in what does this distinction between the two consist?

Is the distinction between free speech and “hate speech” either morally or legally relevant?

These are some of the questions that any discussion over “hate speech” must include.

However, it is equally necessary that such a discussion also subject to interrogation the concept of free speech, for it is painfully obvious that there is much conflict and confusion over it, especially among the self-styled…

Read more