‘If I don’t listen, it isn’t happening’ say Canadian Courts
By scornado • Jun 12th, 2008 • Category: PoliticsThe New York Times has a piece this morning about a Maclean’s magazine article that painted an unsavory picture of the future between Islam and the West. Maclean’s is being sued by the Canadian Islamic Congress group for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect” and it looks like they may very well win their case.
The NYT article is well worth reading in full, but the gist of it is that the United States is the only Western country where there are so few restrictions on hate speech, and perhaps we should fall in line with Europe and put the legal smack down on some of the vitriol that comes out of our national discourse. I understand the appeal; I went to school 30 minutes away from the infamous Fred Phelps (I won’t even link to him, as I don’t want his repulsive site to get any more hits.) Fred and his ilk are famously of the opinion that every problem in the US is due to homosexuality. He would picket at any opportunity on the campus at KU, and believe me there were times when we all wished these people could be arrested or at least sued into irrelevance:

This sort of unleashed hate is socially dangerous; as is vicious hate against immigrants of all stripes, African Americans, Muslims, Atheists, and any other group that sis outside the white mainstream. It preys on the ignorant, alienates us as fellow citizens, and raises the stakes towards violence.
But does putting legal limits on speech make these sorts of thoughts and feelings go away? My belief is that they don’t go away, they are simply pushed under the surface to fester and swell. In most things, I wish the US were more like Europe (healthcare, education, gun control, drug laws) but in this case I think the rest of the West is taking a wrong step.
The best remedy for hate speech is to bring it out in the sunshine, and expose it for the ignorance it is. Many ideas sound better whispered behind closed doors than spoken aloud for all to hear. Racism is alive and well in the US, but it’s all whispers and codes. One benefit of the current election cycle is that it’s bringing some of our oft-hidden racism and sexism right out on the front pages. I say great! Let the bigots and mysoginists (I’m looking at you Geraldine Ferraro, Chris Matthews, Rev. Wright, Pastor Hagee…) out to say their piece, and make damn fools of themselves. They are a mirror of us, and when they make those statements they reflect something the US psyche doesn’t like to see. While I think a lot of old hatreds and grievances have been stirred up lately, I also think that some people will finally shed those old shrouds due to the debating and soul-searching we, as a country, have been doing lately.
You cannot legislate opinion, and a lawsuit won’t make people hate any less fiercely. The only solution is the fierce debate in the “marketplace of ideas” which, if we are vigilant, will shred those who hold foolishly onto old prejudices and hatreds. The First Amendment is one of the finest accomplishments of the Constitution, and one that is as precious as ever to our growth as a Nation.
What do you think?
scornado is Generally held responsible for the large increase in hot air blowing across the Sun Belt.
Email this author | All posts by scornado




I am divided on this issue.
If we have a benevolent government in place, laws restricting speech like this could be used to stamp out public bigotry. If we have a repressive government, the same laws could be twisted to be used against the citizenry for authoritarian reasons.
One benefit of such laws is to set a “moral standard” so to speak. Laws often reflect the values of society. When our society valued whites as human and blacks as subhuman, we had laws allowing slavery. Now that society places greater value in equality, we have laws mandating equality between races and genders.
So making hate speech illegal is a way of publicly repudiating bigotry as a society. It holds up repudiating bigotry as an example to be followed by everyone in society, which could be a powerful symbol and tool.
I’m just not yet convinced that restrictions on free speech made during times of good government (which is already a stretch in our current time) wouldn’t be used against us during repressive regimes.