Hey guys. We have a new guest contributor on the blog. He’s just getting his feet in this type of forum. Hope you enjoy reading his thoughts and I hope he enjoys this format and continues to contribute. Please welcome Alex.
***
Freedom of speech is currently under assault in America. What has long been an undisputed cornerstone of American society is now being put on trial by the neo left. Using the term hate speech as a dagger in the back of the constitution, groups like Antifa have taken aim at any speech they feel is unacceptable and hateful. They often meet speakers they deem hateful with violence, as seen on campuses like Berkeley, or even coerce school administrations to cancel speeches, as seen at DePaul. This concept of banning hate speech not only is completely unconstitutional, but also is a dangerous precedent to set for a country.
The first amendment is absolute in its language, leaving no room at all for interpretation. The citizens of America are guaranteed freedom of speech. Period. There is no clause that allows the banning of speech ruled to be hurtful or hateful. In fact, many would argue the amendment was meant to protect exactly that kind of speech. Speech that could be deemed controversial, hateful, or even racist. This is because when outdated, unpopular, disgusting ideas such as racism are spoken about, it brings to light the despicable ideas of the concept for everyone to see.
When people like Richard Spencer are allowed to speak, others are able to challenge and debunk the key concepts of their ideology with ease. When people prevent him from speaking with violence, now people who staunchly disagree with his ideology must step up to defend his first amendment rights. Groups like Antifa are forcing anyone with a basic understanding of the constitution to defend people they normally would never agree with. This attack on freedom of speech is truly counterproductive.
The second major issue with the idea of banning all hate speech is who defines what hate speech actually is. We have already seen the scope broaden as speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro have been deemed homophobic and even Nazi’s themselves. The problem with these claims? Milo is a homosexual and Ben is Jewish. In an all-out war any speech they disagree with, they have labeled a Jewish editor who wears a Yamacha every TV appearance a Nazi. If they can define Ben Shapiro as a Nazi, what is to stop them from defining the word “hello” as hate speech? It is equally paradoxical.
Now that is an extreme example, but people have been calling for the speech of actually white supremacists to be banned. The major issue with this is not what is being banned, almost everyone can agree white supremacy is an absurd, terrible idea, but why it is being banned. Is it being banned because people find it evil and hurtful? If so, who judges whether ideas meet that criteria? Multiple ideas could be twisted to fit that criteria through false manipulation. All religions, all countries, even most books could be identified as containing hurtful or evil ideas. Once the government is given the power to rule one ideology unacceptable, it now has the power to rule all ideology unacceptable. So yes, certain speech can be cruel, hateful, and sometimes even evil, but banning any speech leads the country down a dangerous, irreversible path.
I am aware that this article could be interrupted as defending white supremacist ideology. That is certainly not the case. In fact, it is quite the opposite. What people are actually doing by violently preventing their freedom of speech is giving them a message that can connect with a much larger audience. Instead of speaking to five hundred people about their hateful ideology, they can speak to thousands about the suppression of their free speech. So please, stop the war on freedom of speech and let both good and bad ideas be brought to light for the people to see.
