Many of the comments here are simply proof that the leftists don’t support the Constitution or liberty in general.
Those who object to illegal immigration may be silenced because those who wish legally enacted laws enforced are obviously racists engaged in “hate speech” and just be silenced.
Those who support a legally elected president that Leftists despise are obviously “fascists”, “racists” and “white supremacists”, engages in “hate speech” and must be silenced.
Those who support an individuals right not to encourage conduct violative of their religious beliefs are obviously “prejudice” engaged in “hate speech” and must be silenced.
It’s amazing how much the Left hates freedom.
6
NYT "moderators", along with FB, Google (which runs its own little cartoon propaganda machine on its search page) et al., are effectively censors and control the "free-speech" in their little public-financed internet town square. For whatever reason (university Maoist reeducation camps?), "journalists", so they're called, and editors are in the majority cultural Marxists and believe in the Utopian Grand Collective--broadcast nightly "news" (diction matters) and SNL-Late Night--QED
4
Hate speech. like racism, is only a sin if the wrong people do it, right Sarah Jeong?
9
Logic and virtue matter.... identity politics is for herd animals...
3
So the author thinks we shouldn't curtail Richard Spencer's speech simply because it would endanger Louis Farrakhan's freedom to spread hatred? It is obvious that to the author anti-Jewish sentiment is a minor character flaw (at worse) while anti-black sentiment is a crime against humanity. A very common attitude among the hip-hop and black activist community.
It is also odd how he is upset at BSD supporters being vilified. People have gotten kicked out of school for saying the "N" word on social media, but this is only applied to non-blacks. I don't remember Jesse Jackson having consequences for calling Obama the same word. People have gotten an enormous amount of abuse for criticizing BLM, affirmative action, illegal immigration, feminism, transgender ideology. Any reason that so many leftists like the author only defend the right to vilify Jews and whites? They love to babble about the Israeli lobby but the left is full of special interest groups and individuals (NAACP, BLM, CAIR, NOW, Women's March, illegal immigration lobby, Linda Sarsour, Shaun King) that intimidate people into going along with their false narratives and racist self serving agenda. Somehow this is just fine.
7
No.
“Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it”
Thomas Jefferson
4
Just something of note:
Omarosa alleges Trump used the most horrible racial slurs and uttered just the most awful and incendiary remarks during his reality television show. As well as in the white house. It would be reasonable to believe she spent much time with him in the oval office since General Kelly wanted her out.
Today I stumbled on a tweet sent out one month prior to the 2016 election from the producer of the show--Billy Pruitt-- who said back then--"as a producer on seasons 1 & 2 of The Apprentice I assure you: when it comes to the Trump tapes, there are far worse."
The HERO ordinance passed by the city of Houston under Mayor Parker was a good idea. It was an anti discrimination law that was
defeated because basically the erroneous belief it would allow rapist and pedophiles into women's restrooms. Unfortunately the government was ahead of the people on this one.
Before the Texas Supreme Court ruled the ordinance should be left to the electorate Mayor Parker decided to subpoena the sermons of certain churches to see if they were using the pulpit for political reasons. They being against the ordinance. Many, myself included, thought the left was once again trying to negate the First Amendment protections for religion. To them a religion is not a religion if they discuss politics.
To sum it up. The ordinance was right, the Texas Supreme court was right. Mayor Parker was wrong. The preachers were wrong. The left was wrong . The voters were wrong, And the founders, those imperfect white males, were right about the 1st Amendment.
1
If we limit hate speech, we silence the GOP.
3
If the German people silenced the Nazis during the 1930's then there wouldn't have been WW2, 71 million people killed, and the Holocaust that murdered over 6 million Jewish people, and 2.5 million children.
Fighting hate is the resistance for a more democratic and caring social system of equality.
Where there is power there is resistance said Foucault, the French post-structuralist philosopher - this was Nietzsche's notion of power that resistance is where power is exerting itself, and that resistance is the opposite of power, as to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - Newton.
Resistance is the power of change, and the Democrats must resist all what this Trump regime has done, and reverse it after they get back into Congress in November.
Investigations, investigations, investigations, into everything that Trump and his cronies have done must be investigated in depth and then exposed to the rule of law and the people of America.
Resistance is power - Resistance is power that is negating the power of wrong.
2
Everyone who's concerned about civil liberties should read this article. It goes at the heart of the problem: the definition of hate changes according to who is in charge of policy and culture as time goes by. What's hate to one generation may not be to another. I'd much rather let an Alex Jones mouth his filth than a future generation be stifled by this precedent.
4
Assata Shakur was found guilty of murder. There was nothing questionable about it.
I am so tired of people defending criminals and murderers.
2
Elastic... indeed, we dont have equal application of standards, which is scary for the weak.
I agree with in a certain sense that we should not silence hate groups. But we should at least question the people who have close relations to the haters, such as the Obamas and their 20 year long pastor Reverend Wright. Rev. Wright also married the Obamas and saw them sit in the front row each week while he delivered hate. Many question Trump for saying that there were "good people on both sides" of Charlottesville, but the same people who always talk about Trump never talk about the Obamas who obviously must have thought that Rev. Wright was "good people". In other words, I am disagreeing with you and suggesting that we cannot excuse somebody just because they are black as the travesty seems far worse in terms of the Obamas' 20 year long close relationship with Wright.
4
In civilized society, civilized behavior should be encouraged and incendiary behavior masquerading as "speech" should be discouraged. The owners of a private forum have the right to make that assessment, even whether others agree with them or not. To allow all speech, whether the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a movie theater or not is backing away from our moral duty to maintain the social order. In a public forum, this can clearly be manipulated by political bias, but in a private setting, it's in the hands of the owners, and caveat emptor. I applaud the censorship of Alex Jones. He's clearly a crank whose messages have nothing to do with disseminating truth or even opinions, but instead with enraging people with his deliberately inflammatory comments. Censoring him aids the progression of truth, it doesn't obstruct it. Perhaps that should be the guideline for censorship, in the end.
3
To the British, who ruled over the colonies which became the new nation called the United States, the Declaration of Independence was probably hate speech.
Very provocative, threatening and politically dangerous.
Just about anything can be construed badly by the offended party.
But, slander and libel seem to have some objective rational.
It will be shown, hopefully, that there is no doubt that the Sandy Hook massacre occurred.
And, that anybody doubting that is not dealing with reality.
Whether by choice or ignorance a person like Jones chooses to ignore facts does not matter I think. The legal constructs behind slander and libel - deliberate or not - are the standard after decades of cases and judicial review.
Let's stick to those concepts and not go down the unpredictable path about which this article aptly warns.
1
"passed a bill that would prohibit from receiving public funds “student organizations that participate in hate speech"
Chilling. I thought students were supposed to be learning how to think critically, hone their debating skills through rigorous discipline and research, familiarize themselves with the good,the bad and the ugly, explore new horizons, attempt new challenges. Even be up to arguing the devil's advocate if called upon, if only to show that he has no argument.
Is this really what higher education has come to, no students who can effectively silence, with erudition alone, an opponent whose only argument is 'hate speech'. Who cannot make their opponent pause for thought to consider their own ideas. The future looks bleak if even those with the gift of higher education do not use it to strengthen skills, communication, knowledge and instead look around for 'safe-spaces' and bills to protect them from having to hear, less challenge, the 'other' side.
3
This is a red herring.
Define hate speech in a way that excludes that of groups who, due to centuries of abuse, are reacting to that abuse. And define it in a way that includes only the speech of those groups responsible for that abusive history. Define the term, and be precise about it. It's what lawyers do.
Joseph in Missoula
1
@Joseph Jews have receiving centuries of abuse but aren't given a free pass at anti-black racism. The other way is given a free pass. There is no logic to it. The claim that blacks shouldn't be held accountable because they are soooo powerless and their hatred is harmless is beyond belief.
5
I disagree 100% with censorship, I abhor hate speech. But you cannot challenge something if you do not know it exists. Censorship throughout the ages, and there has been much, has never added to the positive evolution of mankind. Censorship controls by hiding information, it dumbs down, it negates conversation, discussion, the ability to think for oneself or evolve for the positive. People should be taught how to think critically, and the only way to do that is for people to be aware of all sides, ugly as that may be. Far better if Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify used their stages to impart knowledge, educate, enlighten, encourage real debate on all sides instead of deciding what, in their opinion, people should be allowed to see.
So much for the information age! And when a new behemoth comes along and decides that 'hate speech' is something else and uses its power of censorship to control access to a different set of beliefs, world view, what then? We are back where we started and none the wiser.
5
Let's get more philosophical: In a free society, hate itself should be an individual choice -- just as to love or to help or to admire or despise -- as long as no harassment, intimidation or illegal discrimination is involved.
2
Most European countries have much stricter hate speech laws than the U.S. and have not suffered from the nightmare scenarios that the author describes.
6
So many of the people insisting that Trump is on the verge of an authoritarian takeover are also insisting that the government needs more tools to regulate media and speech.
Nice to see the Times finally note the obvious problem with empowering our current leadership.
3
The problem that Alex Jones Infowars poses is not that it is hate speech but that it intentionally falsifies information and then passes it off as truth with no disclaimer.
Just as a bookstore or a newsstand is not required to stock any given publication, servers and distributors are not required to make Alex Jones available on their services.
6
@rlschles Buy some cleats; you're going to need them as you traverse that slippery slope. Here's your problems:
How does one prove another person's intent? For example, if deleting 33,000 emails isn't proof of intent, what could be?
How does one prove that someone else knew something was false? For example, you have 10 billion or so people who believe in their Gods, and none can prove God exists. Are you going to deny them the right to speak of their beliefs? Do they have to disclaim each time?
I can point to dozens of statements in this article that are stated as facts but are really just subjective opinion. None are disclaimed. ("took a bold step" "tempting to applaud" "hate is a dangerously elastic label" and on and on. I don't agree that any of those things are true.) Would you ban this article?
"You know the nearer your destination, the more you're just slip sliding away."
1
This is simple. If any speech can be silenced then all speech can be silenced. Pretty much guarantees that you will never hear the truth. Learn to weed through the noise people, that's the effort we as an Americans owe to the genius behind the First Amendment. Take it seriously.
6
We should go back to the touchstones of free speech. Will it almost definitely incite violence? Is it like shouting "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater? If the answer to either of those is yes, it should be subject to regulation; allowing for criminal and/or civil legal recourse.
The other acceptable regulation is time/manner/place regulation. That's why there were zones of free access around abortion clinics, beggars kept in certain places in airports, etc.
Since no one really knows what "hate" means (another thing only really definable in the mind of the recipient, like sexual harassment), we ought to take that into consideration in considering anything further than those traditional regulation-acceptable zones.
I don't have a plan, but those are the guideposts.
2
@Johnny Comelately OMG, soooo wrong. Charlie Manson said "Helter Skelter" and it most definitely incited violence. Should the White Album be illegal to own?
The critical part you're leaving out is "reasonableness." Does a reasonable person become violent from listening to Alex Jones? Hardly. Does a reasonable person become violent upon seeing a Confederate flag? Hardly.
Nor are those time/manner/access appropriate limitations on free speech. They are appropriate limitations on time, manner, and access, and all were based, again, on what is reasonable. Of course, that they were mostly occurring on private property was an issue as well - there is no free speech rights on another's private property.
One should not conflate the right to free speech with hate speech, insulting, and derogatory behavior/speech.
Civil and respectful disagreement should be allowed to all.
Mudslinging no to much.
5
I declare your attack on my right to speak to be hateful mudslinging.
You’re banned.
(It’ll be so nice when that First Amendment doesn’t get in my way anymore.)
3
The slippery slope argument. Who gets to decide what is hate speech and how will it ever by objective?
6
I grew up in rural Mississippi during the 1960s and saw the terrible impact of unrestricted free speech used for hate and violence by elected and powerful white supremacists. So, I'm a bit conflicted about this. While I support free speech for everyone, that experience still chills me to the bone.
4
"Hate speech," as the author explains, is speech that opposes any substantial or vocal minority of people. And that is a slippery slope indeed.
Of course, one can say that "Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify and most other major internet distributors" are not government agencies; they are commercial enterprises and can ban whom they wish.
But is that true? The Oregon baker who ran a commercial enterprise and declined to bake a "gay" wedding cake was upheld by the Supreme Court but widely excoriated by the Left.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The decision to ban Alex Jones' vile rantings from a commercial internet site, or pro-Palestinian groups from the whole country, may offend many on the far Right.
I don't believe "bans" are the way we should go. So-called "hate speech" should be retired as a law and as a concept. So should the concept of "hate crimes." (After all, there are very few crimes driven by love and compassion.) When, as another poster has mentioned, people or groups commit actual crimes, such as harassment, beating, lynching, and so forth, we should prosecute the CRIMES, not the (presumed) thoughts behind them.
Speech, like thoughts, should be free, no matter how much they offend us. We're Americans -- we can take it!
32
@Heather Angus
I heartily disagree with your definition of hate speech.
Injury is not just offensive. Incitement to violence is not acceptable. And it should not be defined as just another form of free speech.
3
@Heather Angus
Hi Heather! This is the only issue to which I disagree with the ACLU. The free flow of ideas should be cherished. All ideas should be free, with no prohibitions.
Ideas flow from the faculty of reason, while hate is a toxic emotion, devoid of reason. There is no way in which hate can be construed as an idea. Thus the difference.
Joseph in Missoula
@Heather Angus Hmm, hopefully you're misquoting the author, I'm not going to reread to confirm. Hate speech is not limited to minorities of people. It can directed at a majority group just as well. Otherwise - you go!
The right to speak your mind is the right to howl your hate. It is as simple as that.
James Madison understood this. In Federalist Paper No. 10 he discussed political faction and the propensity of humans to annoy, vex and oppress one another over serious and trivial bones of contention. But, he writes, liberty should no more be abolished than we would abolish oxygen because it "imparts destructive force to fire."
Freedom is dangerous. Freedom entails risks. Freedom is unsettling. Speech can be restricted only when it is inextricably coupled with immediate and present unlawful conduct, such as lynching or laying a torch *to* the theatre. (And no, Holmes' infamous quip does not state the law.)
The right to speak your mind is also the right to question, to doubt, to sow discord, to disseminate propaganda (whether "fake" or not) and to "corrupt the youth" with "false ideas" injurious to the state. Socrates paid the ultimate price for that freedom, as did countless other victims in subsequent ages.
In this respect, the Supreme Court has, for the most part, got it right. It is sad to see how in the land of the brave the risks of living free are so quickly cast aside in favor of the tyrants' appeals to unity and harmony, health and harmony or the protection of innocents. The censor's excuses are always the same and, sadly, always work.
4
The unstated assumption of this editorial is that some hatred of people based upon stereotyping is okay because it is in response to hatred of people based upon stereotyping of the first group of people mentioned. It's a lame excuse that asserts that the same kind of illogical and unjustified behavior is okay for some but not for others. It is a fact that when people are discriminated against by one group they will return the favor, and that is just the way human beings react. The golden rule only works before people have come to such a state. Once the bad treatment begins it begets that same kind of treatment in return. It will continue until both sides become tired of it.
5
While I agree with your main point (censorship can bite in all directions so hurts everyone) rest assured Big Tech is on your side. They are decidedly progressive in their political views and are becoming invested in silencing conservative ideology and promoting progressive ideology. Personally, as most of us are, I'm opposed to all bigotry whether perceived to be from the "left" or "right" but I can't support silencing anyone including the bigots. That said Big Tech (and the media generally) are only truly offended by bigots perceived to be from the "right" while those on the "left" are viewed as righteous warriors for social justice and celebrated. So relax, I think your fears are unfounded.
3
Freedom of speech means freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. We hear what people think then we decide, we do not ask some authority to tell us what to think. That means people can speak hatefully and stupidly without censorship and we are free to accept or reject what is said based upon our reason or our feelings. Living in a free country does not mean living a protected existence, free from distressful experiences.
4
@Casual Observer "we do not ask some authority to tell us what to think."
Ever been to or watched a Trump rally?
4
I don't believe that the founders of our nation meant free speech should allow people to spread dangerous lies that cause violence.
4
The only speech that should ever be silenced is of the yell fire in a theater kind. The problem is the grey area where hate speech starts to become the prohibited kind; who determines when the line is crossed?
If, in your hate speech, you call for Constitutional rights to be violated, I think you're right up on that line, if not over it. If you call for violent violation of others rights, that's over the line - and it doesn't even have to involve race, creed, etc. I think in that case, those protesting such speech have the right to drown you out with their own speech, even if it is problematic if the government stops you. And, if your call for violence can convincingly be proven to have resulted in it, you should be subject to at least civil, and probably also criminal, prosecution.
4
Very perceptive point. In a world dominated by public relations, social media, and advertising, anyone can be accused of anything. And only the amount of advertising dollars will determine the "truth" in people's minds.
I have often thought the term racism is overused by the left to describe activities that have little or nothing to do with race.
3
@Ron you would be right.
All religions claim a privileged access to the Truth, whatever that may be. In doing so they definitionally must deny the veracity of the claims of other religions. Sometimes colorful language is used to make these claims and denials. Interpreted literally these claims and denials could easily qualify as hate speech.
Bottom Line: Without unfettered Free Speech there can be no freedom of religion. Your religion may be another's hate speech.
4
The example of Black racism is a bit overdrawn in this article, but the concept is right on----we need to allow free speech even if we disagree with it. Facebook, Spotify, and Youtube don't understand the concept apparently and although they are not government agencies, they should be concerned with free speech. At this point they are simply corporate censors.
3
Hate speech should mean "words that move people to violence against an individual or a group". Such a definition does not violate America's "Freedom of Speech" amendment and it prevents political factions from discriminating against each other.
Facebook, YouTube, Apple (i-Tunes), Instagram, DISQUS, etc, banded together this week to keep Alex Jones from using their services. Among them, they have more than half the world's population as users. These companies disagreed with his political opinions and accused him of "hate speech" so they removed his channels, his advertising, and his presence. In effect, they censored him. THIS IS ILLEGAL in America which has laws against monopolies and restraint of trade.
By removing Alex Jones and his channels and preventing him from using their services offered to the public, the conglomerate of social media giants violated countless American civil and business laws. By banning Alex Jones they formed an UNFAIR COMPETITION MONOPOLY that prevents Jones from advertising as any other company may do on social media. By censoring him they violate America's guaranteed "Freedom of Speech".
When I was in grade school we were taught that only dictatorships silence opposing views so as to prevail and keep their people controlled. We thought people living under such conditions were dumb or weak or both. I never expected to see the day that I lived in such a country.
Was Info-Wars making too much sense to too many people?
1
@jessix
Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Instagram, Disqus are all corporations. Their rules are theirs to apply as they like. There is nothing in the constitutionally protected right to free political speech that mandates a corporation must abide speech they disagree with.
Only our governments are required to accept all political speech.
Sorry...
3
@Bjhlodnicki The First Amendment covers ALL speech, not just political speech. I would like to point out that all these major corporations have received and/or are receiving, tax breaks, whether federal, state or local in nature. Some have received subsidies. I do believe as well that the US has "monopoly laws", which it would seem that these companies are skirting dangerously close to. Remember, if this is allowed to stand, it WILL come back to bite you.
Perhaps the answer to 1984 is 1776?
5
Hate speech is an incitement to violence.
Hate speech causes very real harm to those against whom it is directed.
Hate speech is a weapon against minority groups that have limited voices in our media.
Not all speech is equally valuable.
I believe in Free Speech.
Free speech must be civil.
2
@Bjhlodnicki "Value" is a subjective thing--something that's valuable to you may not be valuable to me, and vice-versa. "Free speech must be civil" according to....who exactly? What is "civil"? I don't believe you believe in free speech, sir/ma'am, I believe you believe in "moderated" speech.
1
@Dawn
I believe in respect.
I respect your statements although I believe you are wrong.
Lies are not protected speech.
Non-political speech is not protected.
Writing comments on a corporate owned set is not protected speech.
Constitutional Free Speech is already limited even though most people don't understand that.
The main point of the article is a salient one, but one couched in the false mythos and revisionist history that many "academics" practice these days. Lay out all of the facts or be a hack. There is no middle ground here
4
The right to protest does not cancel out the rights of everyone else.
3
You ban it or silence it you drive it underground where it can grow without observation allowing it to metastasize into something deadlier. Better to know and be able to confront the enemy. These tech companies that are silencing people will one day regret it greatly by either a populist uprising for free speech or a guerrilla attack on their interests.
3
Freedom of speech....where have I heard that before.....?
When Black Muslims called white people, "devils", it was hate and it was racist. It does not matter that it was in reaction to a majority population who were mostly white racists. People are not different along racial lines, that simply is a false concept but it is the assumption of both white and black people who attribute the bad behavior or the justification for bad behavior to racial differences. Strong emotions like hate or love distort our perceptions of simple reality. We excuse the bad acts of those we love and we ignore the good acts of those we hate. The golden rule is based upon believing that everyone is as good or as bad as we are and so deserve fair consideration.
8
"If people engaged in a boycott can be silenced, even criminalized, for discriminating against the group they accuse of discrimination ..."
By "group", does the author mean "country"? Because if he means "group", then he is making the opposite case to what he intends and belies the hallmark of modern anti-Semitism.
The author also tolerates Malcom X's racism because X sometimes suits the author's political agenda. Such is the argument of Trump supporters.
And Black Nationalism is different from White Supremacy, in the author's description, only because of how it came about and why he thinks it helpful?
Unfortunately, in this article I hear not the argument of a principled free-speech advocate, but the unprincipled end-justifies-the-means argument of racist enablers everywhere. There is a better argument to be made for free speech but this author simply fails.
8
People are the same under the skin. The white supremacists and the black nationalists think in similar ways, both attribute bad behaviors suffered to race and both are making the same conclusions about finding happiness, distancing themselves from people of the other race. I know how racist whites think, that somehow being white makes them better, and how accomplished black people have more white ancestors than others. Stupid. Then I find that wrongs that I see as wrongs being done to everyone being attributed to white supremacists acting through the power structure against black people. Then I see that people bring attitudes into situations that distorts what they perceive. People are the same under the skin.
1
The professor comes to the right conclusions and warnings.
Those who feel comfortable limiting the rights of others are those with the socio-political wind at their back. They never pause to consider that they wield a double edged sword which could redound upon them in a future where they are no long in the ascendant.
When we fastidiously look out for the rights of our opponents, at the same time we are preserving our own.
5
As usual the Orwellian types have used “doublespeak” to cloud the issue.
First of all “hate” is an emotion and can be expressed in many ways other than through speech.
And when suppressed, emotions always come out, one way or another and usually in a stronger fashion with extremely undesirable results.
Second of all, free speech is free speech, regardless of the content. A few legal exceptions to this have been made, but speech remains largely free and is a hallmark of both our freedom & society.
The price of freedom is free speech.
5
Perhaps slightly off-topic, but I'm curious as to how anyone is going about trying to "criminalize" BDS. I understand the underhanded ways in which participation can be penalized, such as the example given in this article; but how can anyone be fined or jailed for simply not buying a laundry list of products? How can anyone even prove that someone who isn't buying those products is "boycotting" them and doesn't simply prefer another brand, find them too expensive, or neither need nor want them?
2
I am still trying to figure out what happened to civility? What happened to live and let live? How did abortion become such a rallying issue when it doesn't effect half of the population who are the ones trying to eliminate it altogether. What happened to peace? What happened to being welcoming? What happened to us? What happened to rehabilitating criminals in prison? What happened to giving all children the best education? What happened to us as one nation under God? What are we fighting about when there is so very much more to be concerned about. We are pecking at nonsense while the whole world is becoming unglued at the seams. What has become of us? What happened to realizing that we all want the same things in life? What happened to realizing there is more than enough resources in this country for everyone? What happened? Why the avarice and greed for corporations and the wealthy. What are we doing to ourselves? What happened to equal housing and medical care? Please ask me about how the country can be retrained for current jobs! All anyone really needs is employment.
2
Great piece, not sure what happened to "liberal thought" and being open minded. Just kidding, it's been hijacked by the hard left progressives who if you don't agree with you are acting in "hate". While any sane person reading this can agree certain views are despicable, the everyday explosion and outrage going on with the democrats has become boy who cried wolf. IT also completely de-legitimizes when they have legitimate concerns about the President or any other issue, because everything is "So outrageous, hateful, racist, etc".
Its interesting to see all the comments to about the "ALT Right" promulgating violence at Charlottesville. Did the Bernie Bro not shoot up the entire Republican baseball team? Did a BLM supporter not shoot dead 5 Dallas PD officers? Did a man in Cambridge yesterday not offer a $500 bounty on the heads of ICE agents after the Senior Senator Warren from Mass. effectively urged the same thing?
The violence happens on both sides, it seems that the NY Times readers are just oblivious to it because their news source is this paper and MSNBC.
8
Those espousing harm to others, as the Trump-approved neo-Nazi's are doing today, are guilty of hate speech and inciting violence and so do not deserve protection under the first amendment.
Those espousing resistance to a obviously corrupt president and his corrupt administration are working within established norms of politics.
DO NOT CONFLATE THE TWO.
3
At heart, censorship insults the audience. It says "you are too stupid to recognize nonsense when you hear it." Well, anyone who believes his fellow citizens are too dumb to sort out the baloney should get to work on educating them, not silencing those they are presumably too dumb to reject.
Censorship is an exercise of power, with all its corrupting implications. Giving people power to protect us from our own stupidity is, well, stupid. Maybe that's what they mean when they say we get the government we deserve.
6
.... a rare moment of sense in the pages of the NYT.
2
Another not small point of hypocrisy is liberal media elites have routinely demanded "accountability" for Facebook permitting the posting of perfectly legal propaganda by Russia last election, holding Congressional hearings and losing their lunch that (gasp) foreign powers play propaganda games on social media.
Yet they are suddenly hands-off, laissez faire if speakers whom they detest are banned.
Which is it? Should Congress have oversight over the social media giants or should we let them do whatever they want?
4
To the NYT censors...
Would you please provide some guidance for conservatives on how to not be silenced and how to get around YOUR resistance?
I'm being good and simply providing another point of view.
Embrace the freedom of embracing others' freedom. It will make you proud one day.
6
There is no concept of "hate speech" in American constitutional law. The First Amendment protects all speech, including lies, distortions and hatefulness, unless it incites imminent harm to other people. The government cannot ban or censor speech or prevent it from being spoken or published. Private companies, however, can restrict employees' speech and can discipline or fire them for what they say. Social media are private property and have the legal right to censor their users and content any way they like. None of this is likely to change soon. In a world full of lies, half-truths and omissions, you are free to decide for yourself what the truth is.
1
100,000 words have been written in the NYT lately about "hate speech". Exactly 0 have been written about a workable definition of this term that would be fair to everyone.
Ideologues don't even try because they very much want to reserve the enforcement of this crime for their political enemies.
This should tell you something important. Very important.
Here is an exercise: Ask people if they think it would be fair to judge statements as "hateful" by first removing the targeted group from the statement and deciding it in a viewpoint neutral manner. If the answer is that context matters and they must know the targeted group first then you are very likely talking to someone who wishes to use the law as a political weapon.
2
Just do what you've always done: condemn rhetoric from the right as hate, and let the left say whatever they want. It's worked until now, why change?
8
Despite what some of the comments say, speech that incites violence is unlawful. It does not appear that Professor Nielson’s piece is supportive of speech that incites violence. I read his article as being in opposition to broadly brushing “unacceptable” content as a slippery slope than has and will be used to bar the voice of those who who need to be able to stridently state their anger. Be very careful how quickly you defend the banning of “hare speech.” You may end up goring your own ox.
3
It would be far better to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine than to try to restrict "hate speech".
If you have something hateful to say, by all means, go ahead and say it. I just want the right to present the opposite side of the argument.
In 1969 my friends and I were hitching around California and we stumbled into a protest at Venice Beach. They were protesting L.A. cops patrolling the town instead of the town having its own force. On one side of the street were protesters on the other side were L.A. cops.
Years later I was smoking a joint with a friend who admitted he was one of the cops that day. Things change.
1
In general, I agree with Alan Dershowitz that the best antidote to bad speech is better speech. That largely holds true for the BDS movement, which I find deplorable.
That said, withholding public funds from such movements is appropriate. While government should not censor, it is also not obligated to fund such hateful movements, and in fact should not do so.
As to why BDS is hateful: it holds Israel, the one Jewish state, to an entirely different standard than those seeking its destruction. And to those who say "oh, but you can't set the bar so low for a country claiming to be a democracy", etc., my reply is that the issue is not merely a double standard. It is essentially a standard of perfection for Israel, and virtually no standard at all for those seeking her destruction.
5
The political left that is cracking down on free speech in the United States. Speakers at Universities they disagree with. Media outlets they disagree with. Online comments they disagree with. Social media. We should see a backlash soon come in waves as it has with excessive political correctness.
4
I would be more supportive of the view expressed in this article if those engaged in "hate speech" were equally condemned in the media. And "tenured" "professors" calling for death and destruction of the very system that allowed them a voice? Maybe protest should be distinguishable from hate.
4
I would consider anyone calling for a group or person to be followed and harassed out of restaurants to be hate speech especially if it is coming from a politician toward those that don't agree with them .
5
It’s wrong to tell a person to be cool in the face of abuse. Hate is understandable when there’s a legitimate reason for it. Unfortunately, many people use the term in willfully obtuse ways (including real purveyors of “hate speech,” who use it as a counterpunch): “Don’t be a hater!” “”Stop hating on me!” What people like Alex Jones and Donald Trump spew could instead be called “hurt” speech. It has no basis in reality and aims only to diminish or eliminate others unfairly in favor of one’s own ambitions. In contrast, it’s possible to enunciate thoughtfully the factual reasons that someone might hate, for instance, Mr. Trump - e.g., he's self-serving at the expense of his stakeholders, recklessly abusive at the expense of his critics, earth-scorching at the expense of U.S. institutions that limit him, solicitous and generous to enemies of the U.S., etc. And similarly factual arguments certainly could be made to explain why someone hates the culturally institutionalized ways that people are marginalized or debased in our society. These observations don’t even need to be made in anger (although it's forgivable when they are, as I mentioned above). It's true that name-calling generally has the effect of diminishing the strength of one’s valid arguments. But if hate-imbued arguments can withstand dispassionate scrutiny then they’re valid.
1
Controlling other's thoughts, feeling and speech? Good luck with that. We are all only human and many have hatred(s). It is who we are. No one is 100% immune from it. We also carry other negative traits. All of us.
3
So many of the comments here seem to give a pass to the hate groups they agree with. We won't get anywhere if we don't push back on the people who give liberals OR conservatives a bad name.
2
Now, where is that new girl Sarah Jeong? I'd like to compliment her.
2
The author asks, "What about the equally historic Women’s March in 2017, after it was revealed that some of the event’s most prominent organizers had ties to Mr. Farrakhan?"
That didn't stop the progressive organizers of the event from "resisting" a sponsor, 'New Wave Feminists' based out of Texas. They were excluded with prejudice for the sole reason that the group is pro-life.
Therefore, the author is wrong in assuming the "equally historic Women's March in 2017" was a Women's March, per se. It wasn't. It can truly be defined as a 'Progressive Women's March' which resisted other womens' points of view.
Perhaps they thought they were standing up to "hate speech?"
As far as Farrakhan supporters--they are respected and have a safe space within the progressive movement to voice their views.
It's why Barack Obama took that smiling photo with Farrakhan and the Congressional Black Caucus back in 2005. Progressives generally see the Nation of Islam as an organization that represents a protected religious minority--Muslims--and not as an anti-Semitic cult as others might see it.
On the other hand, pro-life supporters are most definitely not respected and do not have a protected safe space within the progressive movement. It would have been nice if the author pointed out this fact.
If there exists one photograph of any prominent progressive women's advocate proudly posing with a pro-life woman or women's group I'd love to see it.
5
Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has said, among other anti-Semitic remarks, that Jews were behind the slave trade. Professor Nielson never explains by what criteria exactly he would argue that this comment is NOT hate speech.
3
@uncanny
You're missing the point. Professor Nielson would likely condemn Farrakhan's comments regarding Jews "hate speech."
Yet, he is warning against labeling any strident speech one doesn't like as "hate speech" as a pretext for legally or otherwise shutting that speech down, because anyone can use this tactic.
1
@uncanny Hate speech or fake news?
This particular issue has already left one person dead - Heather Heyer. Murder trump’s first amendment polemics.
2
Thank you for the principal implied. To 95% of the commenters on here go educate yourselves on the first amendment. Secondly, if we censored liars our Presidents from Bush 41 to Obama 43 would have been rendered moot immediately. Everyone has struggled with lying from your heroes to yourselves. Does that mean they do not have valuable speech to share?
1
"i don't agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"
Signed,
Liberals of yesteryear replaced by conservatives of today
4
In part because of opinions adopted and promoted by this newspaper, we have a growing chorus of people who believe it is a good idea to suppress viewpoints with which it disagrees. They are also willing, it seems, to arrogate to private corporations (which this paper also has taught them to despise) the power of suppressing similar speech, without any fear whatsoever that censorship in the hands of unaccountable private actors might go wrong -- depending on the winds of politics and ideology. You, NYT, have helped concoct the lunacy of "hate speech," a formless standard that is mostly (if not entirely) in the eyes of an offended beholder.
6
Facebook and other social-media platforms are privately owned, and not subject to First Amendment restrictions regarding freedom of speech. However, some of these platforms are approaching functional monopolies and finding an alternate platform elsewhere that performs their same roles can be difficult.
What is precipitating this discussion is the banning of Mr. Alex Jones on some social-media platforms. Are there specific examples of Mr. Jones explicitly calling for someone to be killed or physically attacked or is it just an interpretation and personal projection of what will result from his speech? If Mr. Jones is indeed contending that Sandy Hook didn't occur, then that seems easily discernible as false and it doesn't seem likely to sway many people that investigate his claims.
What person or group should be banned from Facebook and other social-media platforms for inciting the shooting of Steve Scales by Mr. Hodgkinson? Who should be banned for physical attacks on Mr. Trump's supporters during the 2016 election by members of a group waving Mexican flags. Some evidence exists that at least one member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was responsible for encouraging and paying for harassment of Mr. Trump's supporters during the 2016 election. Should members of the DNC be banned from social media?
Dr. Nielson is correct, using "hate speech" as a basis to ban people or groups from social media is indeed a slippery slope.
1
whether speech is allowed on these platforms is contractual, you agree to behavioral requirements when you click accept, of course the behavioral requirements cannot be based on the protected categories, such as race
1
There is a difference between opinion and factual untruths. The earth is not flat and there should be no textbook that teaches that as truth. They can include a sidebar explaining that some Flatearthers exist, but not that it is a valid basis for understanding our solar system. Same with someone writing factually untrue statements about people such as where they were born (when there is evidence) or that an event happened. It is not okay for Alex Jones to claim he is speaking an opinion when what he is doing is claiming that an event did not happen, that did.
2
There is no such thing as "hate speech".
And, no one is forced to listen to anyone in the USA, either.
A bedrock principle of U.S. jurisprudence is that the First Amendment allows for "hate speech", including that which denigrates people on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation.
5
@Chancey
Just to be clear. ANY speech that denigrates people on the basis of their race, gender, sexual orientation ... or religion, is hateful.
2
If Professor Nielson can't tell the difference between speech objecting to police brutality or supporting political debate and that which calls murdered children "crisis actors" and publishes the names and addresses of their parents with a call to murder or harm them, I fear for his students.
5
The real problem these days is not the speech but the violence that the speech evokes. In a perfect world everyone would be free to say what they believe with no repercussions. However, today, speech, no matter how right you may believe it is, will elicit a response from someone or a group of people who will fervently disagree with it. Violence may very well accompany that speech in an attempt to prevent the sentiment.
I believe in free speech, no matter what the subject. i may fervently disagree with it but the freedom to say it is so much more important than shutting it down.
I don't know who this "Alex Jones" is but I defend his right to say whatever he believes. i don't have to listen. His words can not harm me if I choose not to care.
9
@Rosie James I have been a staunch conservative since the 80's. I, too, had never heard of Alex Jones until after I joined Facebook in 2009 and saw my liberal friends railing against him.
Wondering what they were talking about I found Jones and listened for a couple of minutes. Those were the only couple of minutes I ever spent on him. The conspiracy theories were too bizarre to waste time listening to.
I think the only people who really care about Alex Jones are the ones who need to hate him.
2
@Rosie James " I don't know who this "Alex Jones" is but I defend his right to say whatever he believes. i don't have to listen. His words can not harm me if I choose not to care."
Inciting others to commit violence could certainly affect you or others. Therefore you should care what he says.
2
@Joe Rockbottom I have seen a LOT of people call for violence on the Internet (something I've never heard Jones do) and they remain active on all platforms. What many people object to is the SELECTIVE de-platforming--some violent speech is excused if it's from a "protected" group or one that falls in line politically. Go spend a little time on YouTube or Twitter if you doubt this.
One interesting incongruity regards some liberal arguments about letting social media firms regulate speech is that the same people express the need for Congressional regulation regards Facebook abuses of privacy and data sharing.
Some of this can be lumped under false advertising, but there is clearly energy to regulate the social giants for their outsized misbehavior.
It would seem then relevant to ask if a preponderance of the public (left and right) is starting to see these few firms as tantamount to utilities or quasi-monopolies.
It strikes me that if you hold we should more carefully regulate the big social companies for privacy policies, with Congress routinely berating their honchos, then perhaps we should also look to extend some semblance of the First Amendment sensibility (yes, I'm aware it doesn't literally apply) to the behavior of these behemoths.
Perhaps there could be a rare glimmer of bipartisanship that these companies have become too big and too powerful.
3
The simplest solution is to have the same standard for everyone, no matter what their personal history happens to be. It is not fair, but people will exploit exceptions in any way they can.
2
There is no justification for hate speech by any group, nothing good becomes of it. If BLM is so concerned about alleged systemic violence committed on minorities by law enforcement officers than bring it directly to the offending agencies attention. I have yet to hear of one instance where they have tried to sit down with a police department or police labor union and voice their concerns and solutions.
4
Just because you haven't heard of such an instance doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, and often. But, meeting with a union would be inappropriate. These officers are operating under the authority of police departments. It is the departments, not the unions, that are responsible for the behavior of the police.
5
@Barry Short A police union has the pulse of its members and its trust more than a political appointee commissioner does. This paper has often gone around the hierarchy of government agencies to get a better handle on issues concerning government workers. If BLM actually cared to solve this "crisis" I would think they would have done the same and loudly announced it.
You claim that police assaults against blacks are increasing, yet you cite no proof. Your gratuitous assertion can be denied gratuitously.
9
You can try to silence Hate Speech, but it is harder to get the idiots of every ilk to come to grips with their ignorance and the reality of the world. The photos and blurbs demonstrate what nonsense some folks posture.
1
To Jack: Thank you for your opinion! I sincerely appreciate your thought! Regards, Dr. M. Balanitis
This piece lost some credibility when the author asserted that Assata Shakur's conviction was questionable.
4
So, "hate speech" (whatever that means) is protected if the speaker is black or anti-Israel, but not if the speaker is white or pro-Israel.
I've heard Mr. Farrakhan speak. He is an antisemitic rabble-rouser, spews nothing but hate, yet the writer defends him.
I recall, in the 60's, living in Baltimore, going down to DC with my black friends to support the cause. Then we heard Farrakhan speaking at Morgan State, broadcast live. They were profoundly embarrassed, even ashamed of the rousing cheering response he got from his college-age audience when he castigated Baltimore's Jewish population.
Farrakhan is the worst kind of bigot. Malcolm X was ashamed of him.
This article is wrong in so many ways. Its support for Farrakhan is just one of them.
11
I don't want to see you ban hate speech because I fear that Abolitionists, Suffragettes, Civil Rights, and anti-war activists would have been deemed hate speech.
I despise Nazis, anti-semites, anti-abortionists, the Westboro baptist church, Obama birthers, gun-grabbers, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers. I defend their right to speak because silencing them would create the laws that could be used against my children and grandchildren's causes in the future. Once free speech is lost the only way you get it back is by revolution.
11
@Elizabeth Greene
You despise anti-abortionists? Why? You may disagree with them, but don't you at least understand that they are acting out of compassion for unborn children? As misguided as you may think they are, I don't know how you can despise someone for that.
2
@Elizabeth Greene You're right. One could easily see people who oppose the limb-from-limb destruction of nascent human beings as hate speech. Heaven forfend that we prevent people from promoting that!
1
@Samuel Russell
Clarifying, I take issue with the 4 people standing in front of the abortion provider across from my old office holding signs showing dismembered dolls covered in red paint. They can stand there all day long, but their angry shouts at the people entering and leaving the office cross the line. I also take severe issue with the 'clinics' that pretend to offer abortions but in fact trick women into delaying until it's too late to get a legal abortion.
I _still_ won't sit quietly by while you try to ban their speech though. They have just as much right to free speech as everyone else.
Censorship takes us down a very slippery slope. In certain circumstances our right to free speech is not protected. For example, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. In this case there is a greater good, the need to protect the audience from a possible catastrophe that could occur if people were to stampede in panic from the theater based on a false statement. In that moment of mass hysteria and fear it reasonable to assume that many members of the crowd have temporarily lost their ability to reason.
However, in most circumstances we do not need the government to protect us from ourselves. Yes, hate speech is inflammatory for many. Yet, have too many of us totally lost our ability to act sanely in non -life threatening situations? As rational humans we have the ability to use our intellect and just react emotionally. It is an individual responsibility not to hate back, to not be manipulated by the rhetoric we hear. The best way to fight hate speech is to recognize it for what it is, just words. Words that we can turn off by literally just turning of the media device. The way to turn down the volume of the hate speakers is to limit their audience. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make any noise. around did it make a sound? Censorship is not the answer, suppressing the hate speech by force will not work.
We must preach more tolerance. We must promote education and analytical thinking as an antidote
4
Hate speech should be free speech. I would rather listen to Nazis and such and determine what it is they stand for than allow someone else determine what other people's opinions I should be allowed to hear.
64
The noble idea of Free Speech never imagined the exponential magnification of lunatic claims made possible by social media. Real people have had their lives ruined—and ended—because of the free dissemination of repulsive accusations and claims (e.g., Gamer Gate & Pizza Gate) by such platforms as Jones's. After the FCC overturned the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, hatemongers like Jones can claim their infotainment is news, but those for whom his flavor of vitriol is catnip are incited to cause real harm. The Atlantic’s recent article “The Last Trauma on Alex Jones’s Lies” reveals the level of suffering caused from what we are now pleased to call free speech.
“Noah Pozner’s family says, they have been stalked and subjected to death threats by Jones’s legions of epistemically gullible yet digitally savvy followers—a fact that has, doxxing by doxxing, forced them to move seven times over the past five years, ever farther away from the body of their slain son.”
1
There is a big difference in hate speech and untrue conspiracy theories. Alex Jones commentaries aren’t just hate filled, they are mostly untrue and designed to stir up people who accept conspiracy theories. Jones stated as fact that the Connecticut school shooting was fake news, named the wrong shooter in the Florida school shooting, convinced people that pedophiles connected to Hillary Clinton were operating in a pizza party basement, and that 9/11 was an inside job. That is far beyond the pale. It’s sad that people will accept these theories as fact without even checking. I’m not sure if they are truly ignorant or just willfully so. Alex Jones and any others who promulgate untruths, from every side of the political spectrum should be banned from social media until they clean up their acts.
1
@Katherine Cagle When I heard the Alex Jones rant, it sounded so wildly absurd that I thought it was a joke. I don't get why people on the left are spreading what would otherwise have limited appeal, except as as a wild joke, as in, 'can you believe this guy?'
@Jenifer Wolf
I suggest you look at and listen to Donald Trump's core group, which are by and large not too dissimilar from Alex Jones' fans, to better understand just how much people "can believe this guy" -- and it's no joke.
Erik Nielson is using unrelated and frankly twisted statements to promote his hyperbolic claims that Black Americans are perpetual victims and "white people" are the victimizers.
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education points out the reality of the so called "power difference" in our society. Blacks are consistently about 17% of the U.S. population and have been for decades with only modest 1 or 2 percent rises every couple of years. meaning there are about 71 million blacks, including those under 18. Children are more than half of the total black population, leaving about 35 Million US adult black people.
Only 30% have gotten an Associates Degree, Only 4.5 Million have a 4 year degree, and less than 200,000 have a Doctorate or Professional Degree.
Pick an industry, any industry and tell us Mr. Nielson, what percent or number that industry must have of black people? black leaders? black CEO's?
Then expand that to all industries. The numbers don't work. Blacks do not have the population based to merit "more power" as folks like MR. Nielson demands.
What blacks have the "right" to have, is equal application of the law, equal access to public "free" education in the public school system, equal opportunity to work to better their own lives and equal opportunity to vote.
They also have the equal OBLIGATION to work and obey the law, but people like Erik do not like to have those things pointed out. Things have to be someone Else's fault instead of their own obligation
5
The problem with using Mr. Jones as a take off point for a discussion of "hate speech" and the First Amendment, is that his assertions about the Sandy Hook massacre and some of his other invented conspiracies are libel.
His statements about Sandy Hook are obviously untrue and causing harm to the bereaved parents. Repeating these libels by allowing their publication by your newspaper, broadcast media or internet outlet makes you legally vulnerable.
The Sandy Hook parents being defamed are easily identifiable individuals, so comparing them to the largely anonymous Holocaust victims and survivors is a false equivalence. (The typical dodge of Holocaust deniers is to deny the scale of the crime and not deny individual crimes were committed.)
The larger question of "hate speech" is important. For African-Americans and other people of color (as well as women, LGBTQ individuals and some religious minorities), the inevitable result of using certain words or expressing certain ideas is discrimination and physical violence.
This implicit call for violence is the heart of hate speech. Many private companies, as well as many agencies at all levels of government, find this speech is unacceptable in the workplace. Further, if both your speech and position in the organization have too high a profile (Roseanne Barr) you'll lose your job.
I agree the internet is (or should be) the public commons. Mr. Jones can launch a web site. Which can still be shut down for libel.
1
Thank you NYT.
Now all we have to do is cross reference the "hate speech" with the level of melanin and the past wrongs done to that particular group and we come of with a perfect matrix of who to ban. So simple.
8
Hate speech is like porn - it's not defined by nudity. You know it when you see (or hear) it.
Rather than blaming people like Alex Jones, who's clearly in this to make money and money alone, blame the people who actually believe him.
2
@Avi
Pretending to know what motivates others is one of the main tactics of debate cheats. What motivates Jones is irrelevant. What counts is whether he is free or not to say what he chooses to say.
If we believe in free will, then you are right: if someone commits an immoral act because they believe something Alex Jones said, it is their guilt, not his - even if what he said is untrue. When we make "untruth" a crime, we place ourselves at the mercy of tyrants who always know exactly what is and is not true (like so many of the commenters here).
And making the expression of hate a crime places us at the mercy of those who deserve to be hated. Hatred is a valid response. A lot of hateful rhetoric is being aimed at Jones right here in these comments.
1
@John Howard Indeed. I've yet to see anyone on here point out that Jones has actually been right a few times as well-whether or not it falls into the "broken clock" variety of right. Take for instance his admonitions about Agenda 21 and the New World Order--which politicians are now quite open and honest about today. We can quibble over whether and how much this might affect us, but he has been right. Was he being "hateful" in calling attention to this back in the day? He was roundly laughed-at at the time, called a "conspiracy theorist", but he was right.
Nielson jumps through many rhetorical hoops defending a double standard. But double standards are corrosive to public discourse. In the past they were used by racists and bigots on the Right. Now they help no one- least of all progressives.
People will see through this hypocrisy- and it only helps re-elect Trump.
5
Excellent use of examples to highlight this never ending tangle. I confess that reading about social media’s attempts to cleanse it’s comments/ads, the public, private debate..is both welcome and disturbing. No resolution so far, but you’ve added a good summary of one side. Thanks.
1
What are you resisting, jobs, a good economy, bigger paychecks, better care for our vets, the destruction of ISIS, better deals and world peace?
5
Alex is selling lies so he can make money from “stuff” he is selling. If Facebook blocks him he losses money and that’s heresy to him. Lies are not free speech. Companies don’t have to support this. Of course that means All right wing radio hosts should be fired, which won’t happen. Black activists during the 60’s were not speaking lies but truth. America had not heard such speech before but it was not lies, it was just uncomfortable.
2
@Sue That's the problem I have with this sort of thing---it's justified if your side is doing it. Left-wing radio hosts have fired off some real doozies--shouldn't they be fired as well? And you think NO black activists lied in the 60's, or was it just "okay" because they were fighting for equality? LOL, and if we're going to start getting rid of people for lying, we better include the politicians as well.
This is the definition of a politically motivated person in fear that those who espouse his hateful views will be silenced.
"The Nation of Islam is a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group, and Mr. Farrakhan has openly made anti-Semitic comments for years. At the same time, the March was a landmark effort focused on uniting black men in the face of widespread inequality and racism."
-So is the author saying that if a white supremacist has done good for a select group of people, that their hatred should be overlooked? Can't the same justification be used when it comes to Israel. Why can't you you look at the good Israel has done for the Jews and world and overlook how they have treated the Palestinians? Or is it that Jews don't count because most are white?
BDS main point is try to boycott a whole nation and those who speak for it (even f they criticize it). But this is a good movement? This also contradicts the whole article as it is about silencing a point of view.
5
It's troubling to ban anyone from our quasi-public platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. under the nebulous term "hate speech". However, I have no problem with them banning the likes of Alex Jones or Louis Farakhan for peddling outright falsehoods like claiming that Sandy Hook or the Holocaust didn't happen. That should be the standard. We should all live by the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
1
@rkanyok
You are repeating a lie about Alex Jones. You would be unable to link to any video or text of Alex Jones making either of those claims.
But even if he was, you would be wrong to advocate banning him from public view.
Contrary to your claim, there should never be an enforced "standard" of truth. Every individual has a right (and intellectual duty) to set his own epistemological standards. We do not need people like you to run a ministry of truth to protect our delicate minds from that with which you vehemently disagree.
1
Speaking truth and facts does not constitute hate speech. What Jones spread was lies, conspiracy theories and slander. He put other peoples lives at risk by inciting others to violence. This cannot be tolerated in a civil society.
Left wing activists have been using the elasticity of the term "hate speech" against their targets with great effect. Yet again the torpedoes they put in the water to kill conservatives threaten to circle back around on them. What a shame!
10
@rfabian
"Left wing activists" are not the only ones using the term "hate speech" against their targets, even though conservatives have a lot of hateful things to say.
If one cannot be secure in what one hears or is expressed and if such somehow violates their own sensibilities, then they are the ones who are most susceptible to perceived injuries that in reality is more a distraction than harm.
If those who are such cannot tolerate the outward expression of others then they are insecure in themselves and ignorant of the realities of the world. This is detrimental to themselves, but when they in turn legalize and protect their sensitivities, then they become the police of such violations and tract down a dangerous path that yet again, leads to tyranny. For no speech or action will be able to survive any scrutiny of their opinion of offence.
3
I have always considered hate speech as that which can result in hate action. The proverbial shout of “FIRE” in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, is hate speech. The point is the shouter purposely lied, misleading people into thinking something was true when it was not, causing real terror. History is a guide to hate speech, since it depicts types of hate speech that had directly destructive consequences. That some embrace the same types of hate speech from history used today suggests rejection of facts for the appeal of or need to express irrational, unfounded in fact, angry emotions. I sometimes think each media platform be required to print a big red label across articles and videos “What is presented has no basis in fact,” to bring it to the attention of the easily influenced. (Yes, even “documentaries” on Big Foot need a scrolling banner added.)
On racism and bigotry: humans may have inherent tendencies to be suspicious of strangers. In contrast, racism and bigotry are learned culturally and that can be unlearned. Even people who know the shameful history of their country’s hateful, needless genocides and inhumanity can reject facts when a false narrative rears its ugly head to allow forgetting shame. They will be in the next edition of history. Those angry with persistent injustices, on the other hand, have a factual point.
How interesting to read this having just finished the essay about Corbyn's/Labour's refusal to adopt the IHRA's policy about anti-Semitism. Both reflect a failure to adopt clear definitions of hate speech but more, plain commonsense. Racists have always been here and always will be. And all targets of hate speech should have the right to determine what it is. Objectionable speech shouldn't necessarily be silenced but it should be defined - and those who utter it should be shamed (at minimum). We are responsible for the things we say and for the things we listen to with credence and without question. (On a related note, I think we need defined FCC standards for what sources can use the word "News" in their title and what should be designated as subjective opinion). If we can't naturally gravitate to a standard of unbiased truth and unrelenting humanity, our laws will have to mandate it - after all, we don't have unfettered access to heroin with the tacit understanding that if your child uses it, that's his/her right.
@ES
To suggest, as you do, that adults having access to all views is like giving children access to heroin is so blatantly condescending to adults, that it makes one wonder, what are you? A super adult, gifted with the knowledge of what views we little adults can be exposed to safely?
Will a super adult like you be tasked with deciding what is news?
Why do we need a clear definition of hate speech? There is nothing wrong with expressing hate. It is a natural human emotion. If you disagree with what I hate, you should be free to hate something different yes?
1
Yes, it disturbed me to see that online forums were going to start censorship. While I am glad that there is a sense of the danger and inappropriateness of hate and fake information, how far is that from the government deciding that climate-change activists and climate scientists are promoting fake science? It is dangerous territory that should be tread through carefully and with full awareness of the implications.
1
@Jeffrey
To suggest that hate and fake information are dangerous is to insult the intelligence of everyone. There are some things that should be hated. And deciding what is true and what is not is the reason everyone has a brain of their own.
Climate science is fake science. You are (so far) free to think otherwise. You should care more about that freedom than the climate.
1
I understand the slippery slope argument, but the past 2 years have clearly demonstrated that the sort of hateful speech that has gotten a broader audience incites our worst behaviors.
When anything goes, eventually everything will.
@Jenny Marie I agree. But when you are a college professor who can get away with nailing someone you disagree with over the head with a bike lock, it tends to make you even more resolute in your moral virtue.
1
The core problem is not "speech" but bad behavior and bad choices. People do not discipline their children. People fail to supervise their children. People do not insist that their children pay attention and learn in school. So the children grow up undisciplined, incapable of getting along as a productive citizen and community member, ignorant, and undesirable to employers.
Sadly, they also procreate, compounding and perpetuating the problem. No "speech" that is aimed at stopping that cycle of failure, no matter how scornful, should be branded as "hate". We have tried "love" and we have tried "money". We have tried everything from glorification of athletes to near-sanctification of some who overcome drug habits and it's not enough. People successfully emerge from the "poverty cycle" by learning and emulating the habits of successful people. That starts with proper use of the language, decent personal habits and dress, and making an effort to fit in, rather than rejecting all norms.
5
@StandingO
Correct and well stated. Criticism is not hate and cultures deserve to be criticised for the same reason as behavior - culture, after all, is a statistic about behavior.
2
@StandingO I cannot upvote your comment more than once, mores the pity. I remember the first time I listened to Molyneux's lecture on single mothers--I was very angry. However, I forced myself to listen to the entire lecture, and realized that, much as I hated to admit it, he was right about most of it. It angered me because I was a single mom. For awhile I engaged in "but I didn't do that!" and some "what-about-ism" but eventually I understood. It was criticism intended to help people understand just how destructive single parenthood is, to the entire family and society as a whole. Sometimes what's being said may sound like hate, but perhaps needs to be said--and heard.
We are witnessing the battle between good and evil. Be prepared and choose wisely. Those who are prepared to enter the fight, for the sake of their eternal soul, may feel very strongly about exposing hidden, repugnant realities to others. When this battle is engaged, it is often quite horrific to behold. All will be revealed, and the fight will be fierce. Take shelter of the Source of All, and powerful forces will come to your aid. The soul is free to choose; do not be afraid, and choose wisely. Believe in freedom, including the freedom to put out powerful information exposing secret evil, and you will be lifted up despite the forces of darkness arrayed against you. The soul is eternal. Om tat sat.
While these private companies are doing nothing more than the NY Times, which also monitors comments, since Facebook, etc., are so widespread, it starts opening the door to sanctioned censorship. Facebook may call something a fake conspiracy theory and shut down something real among the noise.
2
Hate speech for me (and my Progressive friends) but not for thee? False equivalence and straw man arguments will never pursuade.
1
@Kingston Cole
Then why are so many persuaded?
The problem with hate speech is that there is no problem with hate speech. We SHOULD hate some things and we SHOULD express that hatred. And each individual should decide such matters for himself.
I hate little rhetorical bullies who want to control the speech of others. They are consistently on the wrong side of most issues and I suspect that is why they want to stop those who disagree with them.
1
Hate speech based on lies and intentionally factual inaccuracies has no place in any society. Mr. Jones's comments are rooted in just that. I don't find it difficult to ban his comments from social media.
This bending over way backwards to make sure all speech gets heard will be the death of democracy. Two words: Citizen United. A few more words; my local public radio station got threatened from the right politicians claiming they weren’t being heard. Now the station always plays clips of conservatives first and sometime only them. The liberals sit politely by , saying nothing.
To paraphrase: we should be careful about restricting the hate speech of others lest we risk the curtailment of our own hate speech, which isn't really hate speech per se but could be cited as such using any literal interpretation. As usual, it depends on wether it's a blue ox or a red ox being gored.
7
@Dwayne Keith
Correct and well stated.
1
And yet the words and thoughts of Malcolm X are well known and read throughout the world... that's the irony of censorship.
Conflating the FBI's pursuit of Malcolm X with the private actions of private entities is a false equivalence.
Spoken like the people that want the government to keep their hands off of their medicare.
Let the free market of ideas play out and remember that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are players in that market as well.
If there's an issue, take your business elsewhere.
2
@OneView
OneView, what you say is valid unless those large social media giants are the beneficiaries of government subsidies and favors that tend to give them monopoly powers.
And they are. A free market it is not. The social media giants are arms of government, no matter their nominal legal status.
You could as easily say that the Federal Reserve should be able to counterfeit at will since it is a "private" company.
2
These days it seems you are expected to take sides, support your team and oppose the other team no matter what. I've never been very good at that.
3
Obviously private companies can ban whomever they wish, however these social media platforms receive legal protection from libel and slander charges as they are "Neutral Platforms." Given that they are now selectively censoring based on ideology, this protection will be stripped away, and these companies will now be liable for $Billions or $Trillions in damages as the lawsuits from aggrieved parties mount.
This is of their own making. Trying to control peoples' thoughts and speech has never worked out well, and we will soon rid ourselves of these social platforms that tried to do so.
6
@Andy Exactly right. The reason the Court ruled that Trump cannot block people on Twitter is that it is a "public forum" (their words) and the President is not allowed to prohibit people from being in a public forum. Twitter and Facebook are in a precarious spot of saying they are open forums, available for everyone....all the while choosing who the "everyone" does and does not include.
3
It is a good point that there are unintended consequences to every vague definition of a word. The abstract wording is how lawyers make a living. Hate speech should be defined by psychologists who understand how humans process hateful speech. We don’t allow anyone to yell fire in a movie theatre because it would cause a panic and possible injuries. Therefore, why should we allow hate speech which are usually derogatory incendiary words to cause heighten tensions within a human. The results could be catastrophic and humanely tragic. Hate speech has but one goal to incite anger and push other humans to do physical, emotional or mental harm not to enlighten another human to another idea. Most of us can contain our anger but there will always be those who can push our buttons. If we allow social media, a media seen by billions, to incite these uncontrollable emotions, we will have a mess on our hands. We need to admit that emotions for most in this world are not controlled so easily. Until we admit this, we cannot understand how hate speech works nor how dangerous it is.
@amrcitizen16
Re: yelling fire in crowded theater. So if there actually is a fire, and the yell occurs, the yeller is to blame for the panic? No? Then who? Perhaps those who panic are to blame for panicking whether there is a fire or not.
The game of blaming Adam for Bakers actions by claiming that Adam "caused" Baker to choose to act badly, flies in the face of the principle of free will. If Baker cannot help but act badly when exposed to Adam's speech, can we not argue that Adam could not help but speak as he did, given what he was exposed to? Where does this game of transferring responsibility from the actor for his actions end?
The entire purpose of the game is to find excuses to shut people up who have differing political views.
1
...going down the slippery slope....
4
The author makes a good point. The Dems & Libs are surely short sighted.
4
Alex Jones was not removed nor do I applaud his removal over hate speech. It's disgusting, but protected by our constitution. He was removed because he repeatedly threatened people with violence on his show, he told extreme lies about individuals who were not in the public arena, and that lead to those individuals being threatened with violence and harassed. Including the parents who lost their 6 year old daughter in Sandyhook. He also created the pizzagate conspiracy that culminated into an active shooter situation that he explicitly encouraged. He should be banned for the same reason nazi rallies should be banned, it's not the hate speech, it's the explicit call for violence against people. That is not protected under the first amendment, never was I can call someone an idiot for wearing blue and say that I think people who wear blue are inherently stupid. That's protected albeit ridiculous (as is racism). But if I start talking about how people wearing blue need to be killed or forcibly removed from their homes by militias, or encouraging people to attack or kill them if they see them on the street... that is not protected. Alex Jones shouldn't just be banned, he should be in jail and everyone claiming this is some kind of first amendment slippery slope should be ashamed.
3
@Victor
All good points.
I cannot understand the thinking that gives way to "it’s false equivalence to label black nationalists and white supremacists alike as hate groups."
Hate is hate.
6
@Ryan M
Hate is hate and there is nothing wrong with hate, so long as innocents are not harmed. And no one should argue that hate IS a harm. It is a feeling and it serves a purpose.
Further, criticism is not hate. Nor is disapproval, nor disagreement.
1
the 'resistance' won on nov 8 2016. those rioting now are petulant children in masks.
7
So basically you're concerned that hate speech against groups you don't like will be curtailed. Got it.
4
It's all foolish. Hatred will never end. It will never be diminished. It is as much a part of humanity as the need to breathe. If a magic wand suddenly made all racism, for example, disappear, there would not be an iota less hatred in the world. People would instantly find another reason to hate, just as fast as air fills a vacuum.
If you can't see the irony in hating hatred, you'll never understand how necessary and good it is. That we hate and discriminate is a good thing. The survival of our species depends on it.
Dang, I hate that most of y'all won't understand. It really is brain-dead common sense. Every force in the universe, including hatred, as an equal and opposing force. Spread love and you spread hate, and both are good, or bad. Your subjective perspectives are not truth. Truth sets you free.
3
Banning Alex Jones is not the solution because he is not the problem. Let's be clear, there will always be a few morons, bigots, etc. spouting their idiocy or hatred. The problem is that a remarkably large number of people are actually buying into this nonsense. The problem is that these people either can't or won't distinguish between fact and opinion, or worse, between truth and lies. The problem is that erstwhile fringe and hateful viewpoints have become mainstream. The problem is that the current administration is actively undermining truth as 'fake' and promoting lies in the form of 'alternate facts'.
So, again, banning Alex Jones won't make a whit of difference. He'll find some other outlet from which to vomit out his filth. In the process, he'll gain even more notoriety while simultaneously posing as a martyr.
1
@Santa You're right. And I think the FCC should adopt standards of unbiased fact and any source that doesn't present it or presents it out of context or twists it to support a bias shouldn't be allowed to bill themselves as anything other than opinion. Imagine if all our news sources adopted the non-hyperbole of NPR. It might be less entertaining, but why should that be required?
@ES
"Unbiased fact" would be what you believe, yes? Do you not see what nonsense that is?
Facts are disputed and you want the government to settle those disputes for us?
That is the most dangerous idea of all: that a gang of parasites running an extortion racket called taxation and a counterfeiting racket called monetary policy will be in charge of truth. Amazing that you want such a thing.
@Santa
Your characterization of Alex Jones is utterly false. That may be the reason there are so many people who disagree with you that his views are nonsense.
I would challenge you and all his critics to offer links to what he has said that you so despise. Not characterizations, not your interpretations. What did he actually say that you find to be false?
1
This entire notion of "hate" speech is comically absurd. I personally know dozens of people who HATE conservatives with all of their heart and soul. They and millions of others say so out loud, verbally, in writing, in protest and in the most hurtful ways imaginable all day every day. Celebrities and talk show host and commentators openly and happily engage in hate speech of conservatives and the so called patriarchy of white males all day long. It defies comprehension that human adults at NYT are just discovering this reality.
6
@Chris
There is nothing wrong with hate. It is a natural human feeling and serves an important purpose.
The attempts to outlaw hate are actually just attempts to outlaw certain political positions - which are hated.
1
The idea of "hate speech" and logical extension to "hate crimes" really is an intrusion of "thought police" into what had been heretofore already legally covered issues. Libel and slander laws regulate speech, assault, murder, what-have-you where criminal activity against another person is concerned.
As Dr. Nielson correctly points out, "hate" is a malleable term and is often in the eye of the beholder. After a time it becomes akin to the kid crying "wolf" just to get a response. One recent meme featured Al Sharpton condemning snow as "racist" because it's all white. Is that in an of itself "hateful" or just a legitimate response to the extreme tendency to picture anything and everything these days through a racial lens? Even Black Lives Matter, though raising legitimate concerns, by making the larger issue of excessive police behavior solely a racial one, undermines the effectiveness against excessive policing that affects all of us. According to the Washington Post police shooting database, 241 white people have been killed by police this year, compared to 114 blacks (at the time of posting). So whites are being killed by cops by more than 100% compared to blacks, yet where's the outrage? See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2...
At the end of the day, we're all in this together. Can we back off from the extremist views, tone down the rhetoric, and work together? Or is hate all we have left?
5
Unlike the other major developed democracies, America has no well defined hate-speech laws. It is thus easy to imagine all sorts of hypothetical scenarios in which extreme speech is construed as hate speech and the anti-hate, anti-racist left thereby hoist by its own petard.
But are such scenarios successfully played out in, say, Germany or Canada, where actual laws, finely delineated, are on the books and enforced?
@Robert limits on speech are an anathema to who we are as a people. Accepting all views all speech is how we learn. You don't learn much from those that think like you do, and less from those that want to limit the speech you are exposed to.
1
@Robert Yes, other countries have "hate speech" laws, and are enforcing them. One has elderly ladies punished for quoting government statistics; people punished for publicly expressing anger at being "bumped" off a months-long housing list to make room for migrants; another that punished a comedian for making a joke involving his girlfriend's pug dog and hand gestures. An internationally-known incident involves a man who tried for years to bring attention to a decades-old child prostitution ring being jailed. See how tamping down on "hate speech" can go wrong?
Seems the only ones wanting or silencing speech is liberals. They can't defend/justify their view points and must do the only thing they have ever done, shut the opposition up but eliminating them.
7
@Bob Which liberals are attacking the free press as "fake news"?
@ES Identifying new sources as fake and not free (corporate-owned, hinged at the hip with the Democrat party) is not the same as shutting it down.
@ES LOL, most of the MSM have done it to themselves--they were "fake news" long before this last election. They just hate that someone has publicly called them out on it.
Few people on earth are more ridiculous than free speech absolutists. Here's two clues: The idea that the answer to bad speech is more speech has been conclusively proven ridiculous by the rise of hate radio and Fox News. Also: Nazis don't have free speech rights -- we already listened to everything they have to say and then we executed them for crimes against humanity.
@Steve Simels Ah there, see? This could be construed as a call to violence. Did you know the US also has active socialist and even communist parties. We've killed a lot of them in the past. Can we deplatform them as well?
Dr Nielson uses a lot of words to make a simple point that every American should learn in grade school.
Free speech requires the tolerance of speech we may not like.
There is no "hate" speech as defined lately. There is nasty speech...ignorant speech...false speech...hurtful speech...All mixed in reasonable dialogue. Too often those that don't like what they hear, or don't have a reasoned response, cry "hate."
That is not healthy for any of us.
4
This article is ridiculous. Comparing Infowars to legitimate civil rights advocates like Malcolm X is an insult. Infowars spews patently wrong conspiracy theories and lies.
3
This may be news to the NY Times but black people being human can hate just as much as the next guy. The hateful speech should be handled just like any other hate speech
3
The darling "people of color". They just never catch a break...
any one or any group that promotes hate, using speech or actions, needs to be stopped. That includes Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, all of whom advocated for violence and took violent actions. It also includes every White, Latin or Asian racist group.
You whine about a power imbalance, yet black communities on the whole, intentionally promote behaviors and thought that makes the members ineligible or uninterested in joining powerful structures like the Police Department or to even get jobs in some cases.
on the whole black communities are not successfully promoting education for their members, but are wildly successful in promoting the idea they are victims of some white person even though a white person has never done a thing to them.
Black males in those failing communities are given a free pass to do nothing , drop babies on any number of women, and sit around doing nothing but complaining how much the white man doesn't GIVE them.
Blacks are 17% of the U.S. population and blacks have 17% of the power in this country. That is all you get. You don't get outsized control of our national politics, business, leadership positions, social attention, or any other facet of our national life.
You don't get to run the conversation and you don't get to scream racism every time someone calls a member of your community out for bad behavior.
You don't get to say blacks are not racists because they are just as racist as Whites, Latino's and Asians are.
3
"Black Lives Matter ... renounces violence and welcomes allies from all walks of life"? Yes, as long as they aren't so bold as to imagine that "all lives matter," in which case they will be shut up and persuaded to cravenly retract the expression of such a thought crime. (Cf. Bernard Sanders and Timothy Kaine.) This professor has made the elementary observation that the evil you do to others (suppressing their speech) might bounce back as evil done to you. Very good; I applaud him for that. He criticizes the SPLC; I applaud him for that as well. The NYT reporters still take the word of the SPLC and the ADL as pure impartial truth, but hey, progressives know that the path is long and steep and hard.
4
First of all we should create a better term for speech that demonizes an ethnic or religious group. Louis Farrakhan is given a free pass here by Mr. Nielson. He helped organize a march and spoke to the assembled thousands revealing just how daft he really is with his notion of evil coming to earth via some guy on a rocket ship. Other than his empty sloganeering about self help he is, at the very core of his being, a Jew hater.
4
I want my black sisters and brothers that you don't have to hate me to resist me.
In fact, if you stopped hating me, you might find that I'm totally on your side.
Marilyn Austin
1
Swastikas.
We only see Swastikas when they are accompanied by Confederate battle flags.
We know they represent anti-Semitism and Slave State Confederates, often carried by Evangelicals pining for the good old days of lynchings and Jim Crow.
Yeah, you really want Free speech that leads to the next Holocaust?
Outlaw lying.
1
Thank you for your column
One of the oldest mandates (Hammurabi) given to government is that it should exist to protect the weak from the strong. In that context hate speech is undeniably a weapon.
Additionally please consider this- Hate speech is akin to a gateway drug. Ignore it and it will only escalate.
In this regard publishers must maintain the right to chose what they will Not publish That right should never be attenuated. If the NY Times does not wish to publish my opinion or your column, that is a definition of freedom of the press.
Governments censor, not private enterprise.
Facebook is not the government and-
I hope Facebook is never confused with the government.
Your column seems to have missed that distinction.
Freedom of speech need not oppose the right to be safe and secure
The Southern Poverty Law Center takes a stand by identifying hate speech. They tell us where it exists. They represent the victims and they hold to a line.They are consistent and well-intentioned in their efforts They take plenty of abuse from hate groups. Who then is the Resistance?
I don't subscribe to Facebook
But I applaud their choice to exercise the right to not support something because it is politically correct or favored by some majority.
Democracy is a confusing, messy business. And I am desperately afraid of the tyranny of the majority.
Still, I remain relatively certain the purveyors of hate speech will find another platform.
Sadly for now at least they'll be alright
2
Whether it was Voltaire or Evelyn Hall who said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," that remains a crucial cornerstone of a free society. The ever more aggressive attempts to ban "hate speech" violate every principle this country is supposed to stand for. When the ACLU held its nose and supported the rights of neo-Nazis to rally in Skokie, Illinois 40 years ago they acted in the finest tradition of civil libertarians throughout our history.
Those opposed to the Unite the Right demonstration are well within their rights to stage a PEACEFUL counter-demonstration. But violent attempts to shut the right-wingers down are more dangerous and more unacceptable than the white nationalists parading their philosophy, however repugnant that philosophy is.
The violence in Charlottesville last year was instigated by Antifa, not by the "Alt-right" and no one should excuse any effort to repeat that violence this year.
40
@sdl701
If memory serves, it was an Alt-Right supporter who drove a vehicle into a crowd, killing one and injuring many more.
Only the government is prohibited from interfering in your right to speak. If a business permits its platform to be used for hate speech, I am fully within my rights to advocate for boycotts, object to the practice in any public forum, and encourage others to share my objection. I do not have to listen to it, allowing it in any venue I support, or be prohibited from actively and peacefully working to stop it - just as you are not prohibited from peacefully advocating to stop me.
Again, who was driving the vehicle that killed someone?
2
@sdl701The ACLU may have been in Skokie 40 years ago, but where was it last year in Charlottesville? Is it cowed by the violent left or has it given up the principle that even speech we find repugnant should be allowed (even while we criticize it and argue against the idea in the public square). I reviewed in detail the report commissioned by the liberal town govt of Charlottesville (not supporters of the Right) on the violence during the demonstration. According to the report, the violence occurred when the marchers were blocked from entering the park to which they were directed by police and blocked by the counter-demonstrators who had no permit or authority to demonstrate or counter-demonstrate or be at their blocking location. And the fight was on. But this was not reported by the national press. In fact, the national press reported just the opposite and covered up the left's singular part in initiating the battle that ensued. I am not here to defend the extreme right wing or the subsequent mowing down with vehicle that resulted in deaths. However, I must point out that free speech is challenged when the press can distort the story of what happened so thoroughly. Even the truth falls victim.
1
@sdl701
"The violence in Charlottesville last year was instigated by Antifa, not by the "Alt-right" - the facts and videos suggest otherwise. The 'alt right' came prepared for and spoiling for a physical fight.
If Facebook and the like want to bam people or organizations due to their views, that’s fine. However, they should, and presumably would, lose the protections they currently enjoy as an “open and neutral platform.” They will now be choosing sides and have to accept all that comes with that, including regulation.
1
The flaw in Dr. Nielson's argument is that Black Lives Matter is not lynching white people or running them over with cars; Malcolm X never advocated lynching white people nor did he ever physically attack or threaten white people; Lewis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam never lynched, drove over or beat up white people; The BDS movement never built a wall around Jewish people, nor do they advocate violence against Jewish people. But the Alt-Right does ALL OF THAT AND MORE. These are groups that actively perform violence against Black people and people of color. They speak HATE SPEECH!
22
@Bonnie Weinstein You're right, there is a difference between hateful rhetoric and calls to violence. The problem lies in the inevitable result of hateful rhetoric's inspiring and inciting violence. A "peaceful" neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville inspired an adherent to kill a counter-protestor by car, and other adherents to beat up other counter-protestors. BDS calls for the rights of Palestinians and the elimination of Israel - can you not draw the line between this "rhetoric" and a Stanford RA's threats to beat up any Zionists on campus? I don't need to go into Farrakhan's racist rhetoric, which you surely must be aware of. Outlawing lynching seemed to affect one group in the south, but not because it was targeting that group, but because they were the only ones doing it. Rhetoric precedes violence - always.
@Bonnie Weinstein This is why we are in trouble as a nation.
@Bonnie Weinstein-This is exactly how I feel-the IS a difference between free speech and hate speech-when lives are lost because someone whips up a crowd, it needs to be censored. How many jews could have been saved if early on, his rallies were policed and the German government censored his hate speech? People forget history can repeat itself for good or evil.
The founding fathers new and so should we , that freedom of speech is the bedrock and crucial to a free society.
Start redefining or parsing the meaning of speech and it becomes subject to censure ."Hate speech " is but one example.
A bit like playing identity politics with words .Disastrous
1
Responses to comments. If private businesses get subsidies, tax breaks, or lobby congress, are they considered private businesses which cannot be regulated the way public speech channels are regulated?
Are not individual's Human Rights discriminated against if they are not allowed access to the usual utitlities fundamental to a social life? How can one person get to reach more human beings while another is not allowed to, because their views are not part of the unicorns and rainbows brand a communications service is endeavoring to signal?
What about interfering with the basic rights of employment?
What is hate speech? What about saying that children of ICE agents should be terrorized, or a president's son should be sodomized by a pedophile. Or speech that encourages going up to people and yelling at them, potentially causing heart attacks or closed streets that lead to deaths from people not making it to hospitals?
I appreciate that there are people who say that you have to break a few eggs but this utopia is going to turn into a fascist "right think" dystopia.
3
@cc
Was Thomas Paine practicing "hate speech" or just right on target?
@cc
unrelated hyperbole on your part.
The tenant of Free Speech applies to GOVERNMENT acting to limit speech, not corporations. That you want to claim that getting a tax break or subsidy makes private company part of Government is absurd, false and total tripe.
A private company can say what happens on it its property. If those spewing hate speech don't like the rules of a site, they can do elsewhere.
Alex Jones is still on the Internet and can still access the Internet so his "rights" have not been infringe by the government.
Learn to use critical thinking and "big people" facts to put out your ideas, as what you posted is just childish whining.
Two observations:
1. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, so no government body can ban such speech. The issue here, therefore, pertains only to private organizations. These organizations would be wise to follow suit with the government, as Mr. Nielson argues. The Constitution allows suppression of extreme hate speech -- known as the fighting words doctrine. Those who go beyond ordinary expressions of hate and court violence merit no protection. Those who are prejudiced and hateful, but court no harm, should be allowed a voice for the very reasons Mr. Nielson states.
2. Mr. Nielson misses the boat when he references the Southern Poverty Law Center. He states that 25% of the 945 hate groups identified by the SPLC are supposedly black nationalists. The correct statement is that 25 of the 945 are black nationalist groups, a world of difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_So...
The SPLC is a highly respected anti-discrimination organization. Mr Nielson has gone astray in attacking them. His animosity is misguided and inexplicable. Presumably, it is simple error.
4
To be clear, the “incitement” exception to which you refer has absolutely nothing to do with “hate.” You can espouse hatred of any person or group, and that speech can be extremely hateful and ugly and still will be protected.
What you cannot do is incite a croud, with the ability to immediately carry out your orders, to go and cause specific harm to someone. That is just about he ONLY exception to free speech (other than time, place and manner restrictions, and the proverbial shouting “fire” in a theater type speech).
There should NEVER be an exception for “hate” speech. ALL speech—with the limited exceptions noted above—is free speech. Without protecting the ugliest of hateful of speech, you protect nothing.
As our Supreme Court has opined: free speech is the most important of our freedoms, for it is upon that freedom that all other freedoms rest.
1
@michjas Sorry. Any group that labels an organization a hate group because it espouses the teachings of Holy Scripture is, by definition, a hate group.
1
In the marketplace of ideas the last thing we should be doing is silencing voices with whom we disagree. For practical purposes, censorship often leads to the unintended consequence of an amplified voice.
If a private sector social media platform is a public accommodation, a la, a hotel or restaurant, a legitimate legal question is raised as to whether or not it can lawfully engage in viewpoint discrimination under state or federal law. If multiple private social media platforms conspire to engage in viewpoint discrimination against a specific individual, have the individual’s rights been violated?
This issue is not nearly as black and white as many commenters appear to believe. Kudos to the Times, of which I am often critical, for at least asking questions about this issue.
3
More than 90 years ago, Justice Brandeis - in his concurrence in Whitney v. California - authored perhaps the greatest defense of free speech:
"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Facebook and its ilk, of course, are not government actors.
But we should be no less concerned about the suppression of any speech, including so-called "hate speech" (distant cousin of the equally dubious "hate crime") - whether it is Facebook silencing a nut-job like Alex Jones or the president suggesting we need to "reform" our "libel laws" (especially since our primary "libel law" is the Constitution). The antidote to disagreeable speech is more speech.
6
@Sidewall Yeah, look up Schenk vs United States. You will find that Holmes, in his opinion, stated that free speech doesn’t include “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.” Most of the time “falsely” is left out, but Jones is figuratively “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
I@Katherine read the whole opinion. That is not even close to an accurate interpretation or analogous application. Not even close.
There may be a legal and specific definition of hate speech in a court of law, but I am certain that a vast majority don't know what that would be a many don't care, using their own frame of reference to decide what is and is not hate speech.
Until we can all agree - roughly - what hate speech is can we then begin to extinguish it.
2
@ZigZag "Until we can all agree" which is impossible. In that "all" includes people behaving in ways that we should all hate. If we did, there would be no people behaving in those ways. Such restrictions will do nothing but empower those in power at the expense of those that are out of power. This would be fine if those in power were always the ones that should be in power. However, it takes nothing but a quick look at who is in power to see that more often than not those in power are not the people that should be in power. So all this does is give those that should not be in power a way to hold on to power when they get there. Any speech against them is of course by their definition hate speech.
To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice 'I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it'. The same is true of hate speech. Allowing such hate speech on the sites of major internet distributors normalizes it. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, including the responsibility of major distributers to not allow their sites to be used as venues for hate speech. It also comes with the responsibility to be reasonable rather than to use this writer's extremist argument.
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is a poor example because it presumes that one side is right and promotes hate of the other. The writer neglects to mention interfering in intellectual exchange for the progress of mankind when this organization promotes not sharing intellectual material with Israeli professors. In addition, the violence and hate speech of the Black Panthers and other such groups caused many to withdraw their support for the civil rights movement.
Hate speech that promotes violence has no place in responsible venues.
8
The problem with the "know it when I see it" standard, whether it is for porn or for hate speech, is that it is too objective. The same goes for "prevailing community standards". Why should someone in Alabama be unable to view (or produce) something that is available to a person living in NY?
1
Back in the days when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s my parents instilled in me the belief that the best, and most just, way of dealing with an idea that you did not agree with or your found to be repugnant etc. was to come up with a better idea.
8
Finally. It looks like people have begun to realize what we used to call the “end of my nose” free speech.
Free speech protects all speech (except that which leads to violence and acts thereof).
It was popular in the 1970’s when I was growing up to grant everyone the right to say their piece and to acknowledge their right to do so. We would follow with the comment that “your right to free speech ends at the tip of my nose.” That meant if you don’t like it, don’t listen or watch or whatever groupthink term you wish to use. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. Nobody felt triggered or scared of opinions we disagreed with in general. I am not excusing racist comments designed to scare and intimidate minorities AT ALL. And yes, private companies can limit speech in the workplace (or on social media platforms). Doesn’t mean that they should or that they should get away with punishing employees with off work speech. As an employer myself, I wouldn’t dream of policing my folks off work. I have way too much life to live...
Free speech guarantees are for all of us. Not just people we agree with. Remember, as this column seems to be saying to me, “what goes around, comes around.”
5
Indeed. Those who find certain expressions hateful as a basis to censor them are hecklers exercising the "heckler's veto." It is the antagonist of free speech. The important thing to remember is that those who would ban repugnant expression do so under the guise of political correctness. In narrowing the scope of free speech protected under the First Amendment--not protected: perjury, incitement, liber/slander, false alarms--both sides show their anti-democratic impulses. Objectionable as "hate speech" is, no one of any maturity should be unable to cope with it. My advice is my parents' advice: respond to "hate speech" with dignified rejections, including just walking away and not indulging a culturally indulged sense of victimhood.
4
While I am not sure whether Sandy Hook was a hoax or not, I get it and I agree with Facebook. You come into my house, no insulting my children doesn't matter if you think their rude or not it's my children, I decide.
1
I'm curious. Why do you think that Sandy Hook might be a hoax? What credible evidence have you seen that would support that conclusion?
What’s the difference between hate speech and fighting words? I don’t believe fighting words are protected by the 1st Amendment. Certainly inciting violence like Donald J. Trump has on numerous occasions is not protected speech.
2
One cannot cry "fire" in a crowded theater not just because of the violence/damage it might incite (cf. "hate speech") but because there *isn't* a fire. It seems to me that if we focus on that (easily and demonstrably provable untruths) in addition to the "hate" components, we'll be on the right track.
2
@Lori Cole
You should read the history behind that infamous and alas - untrue claim that you can't 'yell fire'
In his introductory remarks to a 2006 debate in defense of free speech, writer Christopher Hitchens parodied the Holmes judgement by opening "Fire! Fire, fire ... fire. Now you've heard it", and he never was arrested!
1
I love of having different standards of defining hate speech based upon the degree of discrimination a group has suffered. That surely will be the best way to add clarity. Why don’t we list in descending order of discrimination and make it a law. I’m sure we could all agree on the list. And remember to include German Americans, Polish Americans etc. I hope everyone’s knows I am mocking the article.,
5
“... mounting pressure from the political left to censor hateful speech ...”
What the author really meant to say was “demonize speech challenging progressive shibboleths”.
9
The solution is obvious. Let the Southern Poverty Law Center or Snopes decide what is “hate speech” and what is not. That way, most if not all of conservative speech will be removed, while liberals, progressives and Marxist will be able to spew as much hatred as they like.
That’s pretty much what social media is doing already.
8
Will this be the start of an alliance between the alt-right and black nationalism? Standing tall against the injustices of social justice warriors who strive to do nothing more than repress their respective cultural heritage (/end sarcasm)? Enemy of my enemy, standing tall to fight the suppression of free speech.
Wouldn't that be the twist of the day...
1
Allowing White Supremacy full range of hate speech for the purpose of preventing the shut-down of marginalized people to express themselves may sound fair, progressive and even constitutionally sound in an alternative reality. But, non-White speech will be shut down regardless. (Case in point, look at the professional athletics! End of story.)
The reality is White hate is the Mother of all human hate. There is no earthly hate as unsubstantiated as White hate. White hate is the only human hate interwoven in economics, the fine arts, religion, law and now they want our 'permission?' Pleeeze!
That said, white hate as always exercised permission to be expressed, where other voices – if given the mic, has always been limited, restricted and shut down. We have not played fairly, we are not playing fairly now, nor will we ever play fairly in the future. The argument that we need to support white hate speech, in hopes that the crying baby will eventually go to sleep is preposterous. Without White hate, we wouldn’t have fuel for other hates.
If whites were to set an exemplary example of how to be civil, the world would gladly follow. White Supremacy needs to be shut down completely here, now, and forever! When White hate cease, there will be no other of its kind.
4
@Michael A Van Allen: Because people of color always treat one another well and without bigotry? I've been in Africa, and seen overt discrimination based on tribal identity, and the same among Native Americans here in the U.S. It's convenient to blame a racial or ethnic group for all the world's ills (especially if it's not your own group - but I make no assumptions of your background). The fact is, all human beings are tribal, fearful creatures. And we are all very ready to judge one another based on that. It's not just a white thing that would go away if all the white folks magically vanished. That kind of looking for an easy answer - wanting someone to blame - is racism, and I don't care what color you are. We need to get back to considering the content of one's character, not the color of one's skin. Otherwise, we're just comforting ourselves with finger pointing and perpetuating the cycle of hate and harm.
2
Reading Mr. Nielson's sturm-und-drang you'd never know that Alex Jones wasn't actually "silenced." He has his own website and video feed that any of his acolytes are still free to access 24/7. It should be noted that the social media firms dropped him only after he used their platforms to threaten violence against Robert Mueller - not the 64,327 times he's done so to others.
Why not demonize unpopular expression? Or for that matter, popular expression? Shaming and demonizing views that I don't agree with is well within the scope of a free society. Malcolm X's and Louis Farrakhan's unpopular expression is more than worthy of demonization - that's because most of it is pretty awful.
What's really disturbing to me about Mr. Nielson's remarks is the way in which he excuses the virulently anti-semitic and anti-gay rhetoric of black nationalist groups on the basis of the black community's historical experience. As if one group's "impatience" is legitimate pretext to call for violence and the destruction of other groups. And why should this not apply to any other "impatient" groups with a historic grievance? Indeed, is Mr. Nielson prepared to excuse "impatient" white textile workers of North Carolina dispossessed by globalization a hatred for Jews, gays and Bangladeshi workers? Or is Mr. Nielson suggesting that rank hatred is legitimate only when expressed by those groups who he deems legitimately "impatient"?
5
This is about the power to control the narrative. The left have decided censorship is the way to go. Banning a persons ability to communicate whatever they choose is just like the old book burning we see before a regime removes even more rights. Collect the guns, remove the ability to speak freely, and enable your own propaganda are trademarks of oppressive regimes. The left needs to take a long look in the mirror. Censorship is un-American.
9
Yes, censorship is un-American. But, isn't it un-American to require private companies, such as Facebook, Twitter and the NYT, to carry content to which they object?
It is impossible to define and enforce a "Hate Speech" law. For example, assume that a man on a street corner is loudly advocating that homosexuals be put to death, that women should be subservient to men, that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that certain races are inferior to others. He is further advocating the death of those who oppose his beliefs. Is he spewing hate speech? Perhaps. Unless, of course, those opinions are spoken by a person claiming certain religious views. Then, it becomes protected for a different reason and the hate speech law is weaponized to do the very thing it seeks to avoid because those who challenge that man may be considered anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or Islamophobes and thus perpetrators of hate speech. Hate Speech laws can never work in an open society and will only be used as tools to oppress those who resist a certain position, or to suppress the speech of those that may articulate a basis for change. Hateful speech and even stupid speech needs to be fought with good speech in the open for all to see. But, trying to muzzle certain speech based on what some group of elites think is inappropriate for the masses will only lead to totalitarianism, which ironically is what our current President seeks.
2
This has been trending negatively for a long time. Brenden Eich was tossed from Mozilla when the SJW's found out he donated $1,000 to the Proposition in California that marriage was between a man and woman. That Proposition passed by a significant majority, thereby punishing him for supporting the popular opinion at the time.
Joy Reid has been attacked for posts she made years ago, long before her tenure on MSNBC. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and she kept her job, although her explanations were pretty pathetic. Own up.
Not the same for James Gunn being dumped by Disney for posts nearly a decade ago, when he was starting out and long before he signed on with Disney. I hope smarter heads prevail and he comes back for the next Guardians movie.
This isn't just and undefined "hate" speech crossing racial lines as detailed in the article, but that a small group of people with the social media megaphone and massive phony email campaigns can group shame anyone with a dissenting opinion.
When dissenting opinion is labeled "hate," we all lose.
2
"That Proposition passed by a significant majority, thereby punishing him for supporting the popular opinion at the time."
Slavery was popular at one time, as was "Jim Crow." Yet, there's no reason to give a pass to someone who actively supported it. Brenden Eich didn't just voice an opinion on the matter .. he actively supported an anti-gay proposition with a monetary donation at a time when there were very good reasons to support same-sex marriage and no logical reason to oppose it, other than bigotry.
1
I am my own censor. But if I were Zuckerberg or some other power broker I would be sure to edit the contents of my domain. Will it stop hate speech? No. But it will not have a place on anything I own. No matter the financial cost.
DD
Manhattan
3
A boycott, of anything, is in no way hate speech. Refusing to serve an Israeli person in your restaurant or store would be discrimination. But you have every right not to conduct business with Israel or buy products from there if you so choose.
2
My only concern in this "hate" speech controversy is when the government starts defining it and sanctioning "offenders". The state legislation mentioned in this article for example. It is a slippery slope.
I don't have a problem with Facebook or other websites, newspapers, radio stations picking who they allow on their sites. They are businesses, and should be able to make their own decisions. (eg. My brother just left FB over the infowars thing, and that is his right and his response to their policies).
Federally funded colleges and universities should allow speakers of all ilk. Are we going to stop hate speech with mace and batons? No. Observe, then go back and write about it, or organize your own speech.
4
This is simple. If you can silence anything, you can silence everything. First amendment. The price we pay to now and then to hear the truth is all the noise. But that is really what it means to be an American. You have to weed through it: No one will do it for you.
2
When you ban something, people seek it out.
We should be wary every day in every situation. Not being wary and accepting things without first critically evaluating them got us here.
Don't get scared folks it is not as hard as some want you to think to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate speech. You just have to pay attention and speak up when you think something is wrong. That is the price of freedom, eternal vigilance. When you speak please have a rational argument for why you think the thing to be wrong.
1
Sometimes, I want to shut them up, for good, and chase them back into their dark holes. Then, I realize that if we do that, we won't know who, or where, they are. Recently, I've begun thinking that I want to see those Confederate flags, so I won't be taken unawares, and be ready to stop any harm those bigots may do. We won't be able to do that, if we can't see them coming. Now, it's the sneaking around, as extremists are wont to do, that really scares me. Based on that fear, I think I can tolerate with a certain amount of "hate speech."
2
There is a First Amendment in our Constitution. I'm about as conservative as it gets and a repugnant as people like Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnel and Michael Moore are to me... they have the right to be heard. As do I!
People (and might I add the NYT) need to realize we (those here legally) are all Americans regardless of our skin color. This "black lives matter" earring is offensive to me as ALL LIVES MATTER! This woman probably thinks she is owed something. None of us are owed anything except the opportunity to succeed.
When free speech is muzzled, on the right or left, we start sliding down a slippery and very dangerous slope. Facebook is already sliding down that slope. Don't do it NYT!
Another method of thwarting free speech is manipulation of the press and TV reporting to "encourage" a certain political outcome. I think Donald Trump is doing great. You would not know that by the press and MSM.
Thank you for allowing my free speech to be heard.
5
@Nolan Conley The "Black Lives Matter" expression presumed people would be intelligent enough to understand the unstated "too" at the end of the sentence.
When I was growing up and then going to University in the 1950s into the 1960s (albeit in Canada) my parents always reminded me that the best, and the most just, way of dealing with a bad idea was to come up with a better idea. This way of thinking and acting followed me through university back in the days when one of the major tenets of "higher learning" was to expose students to a variety of new thoughts and experience even if some of those thoughts, ideas and/or experiences were what today many people would describe as hateful etc. Sadly, that is no longer a major tenet of many universities where you now have to tow the line as to what you think and more importantly say.
1
At the risk of sounding naive - the righteous voices will always rise up to be heard. The others, while momentarily rising to the top - will inevitably remain on the fringes. Its perhaps why most of know - or know of - Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech - but are hard pressed to recall anything from Malcolm X.
3
Dr. King used direct action to create constructive tension leading to negotiations. He denounced bad laws, customs, and traditions. A reported crowd of 250.000 peacefully assembled at the Nation’s Capital in August 1963 to petition their government for change. In 1968, anti-war activists joined the civil rights demonstrations, Dr. King was assassinated, and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago became a battleground between Mayor Daly’s police and assorted activists.
In 1968, as a member of NYC Police Department’s Tactical Patrol Force, I saw orderly demonstrations by day turn into violent confrontations at night. Casual crowds suddenly morphed into riotous mobs and innocent people were injured. Those peacefully assembling had to be protected and those acting violently had to be restrained. There was no time for negotiations.
Making accusations against individuals or groups, without reliable evidence, in a public forum should be sanctioned. Social media stirs emotions without concern for facts. Too many activists lack the discipline and focus of dedicated reformers and excuse violence to achieve a vague social justice. Diverse activists resist before any action is taken. Distortions and lies divide the nation. Profiteers have turned a serious social problem, the abuse of police authority, into a racial problem. Provocative rhetoric impedes negotiations.
3
Social media, is an overall negative benefit to our American society. At least for the next 20 years until, finally we fund public education well enough to teach people to reason and think beyond the naked words presented to them.
Otherwise, for me, you can either:
1. let private companies like Facebook and Twitter dictate and define what is proper conduct and speech. I am fine with this.
2. Just shutdown FB and Twitter until we raise the ability of our millions to think critically, have a healthy skepticism, coupled with a very high unimpeachable mutal respect for others.
3
@George Jackson
To a point I agree.
I personally have been through public education and it wholly inept process of teaching critical thinking. This translates to all levels from driving on the streets to public office. But I do have a very serious problem with the idea that a private company that borders on a near monopoly on the internet may simply shut down debate that their owners and internal staff disagree with, especially given the fact that like most other companies, they have customers of differing opinions.
Though I do not want government making such laws or opinion on anyone, I question the course of those who want FB and other to be such a monopoly to whit they COULD control such speech.
Unfortunately, there is little int he way of "conservative" mega companies holding such systems like FB and Twitter.
@George Jackson FB and others are companies that cannot be "shut " down..Education is needed...and hate speech needs to be addressed
Debate should always be preferred to censorship. Free speech is much more than the first amendment, it is a culture of tolerance that is confident that ideas are sufficient to settle disputes. That culture is under assault when monolithic platforms act in unison on a single day.
Frankly, Alex Jones has not changed the public debate. Why do we care if he preaches to his cranks and crazies. If his fans do something illegal, then punish the crime.
As a civilized society, we must be able to distinguish between words and actions. Otherwise, we create a precedent for the political opposition to punish us for the same. And as recent elections have shown, the party in power can change quickly and will continue to do so.
10
@Hoxworth
I totally agree with Hoxworth.
Free speech must be, by definition, free, however hateful.
If we are not sufficiently mature to allow the Alex Joneses of the world to spew forth their hate, we do not deserve the very liberties that are the foundation of our democracy.
Any restriction on free speech other than the direct incitement of a public danger (yelling 'fire' in a theater) will surely cause more damage than it will prevent.
We must be fully able to ignore or push back against whatever we perceive to be hate speech just as we must be free to applaud and support what we believe to be right.
3
@Hoxworth Truth! Fake news, disinformation and blatant subjective opinion are paraded as truth from every "news" source in the world, including this one more than most. No one accidentally listens to Alex Jones or the NYT, but one has a few thousand listeners and the other several millions. Let people choose for themselves which liars to believe.
The author seems to make the common mistake of equating government action with private action. If the government attempts to crack down on 'hate speech', either directly via legislation or indirectly through government funded institutions like state colleges, that is dangerous and a violation of the First Amendment. If a private company like Facebook or Spotify finds a certain viewpoint intolerable, it has every right to not allow it on their platform and the only recourse those in disagreement have is to attempt to influence the company by withholding their patronage.
The real world equivalent would be that the government cannot regulate what I say on the public sidewalk, but if I step onto your driveway to talk, you have the right to ask me to leave if you do not like what I am saying.
6
@mikecody
And that's why we need to get rid of private property and have the government take over the internet. Then we'll all be truly free to express ourselves.
@mikecody
Absolutely. The right to not hear is the barrier free speech can’t cross in a private setting-if you can turn it off and ignore it should be allowed. Teaching ones religion to anther persons child crosses that line. Nazis walking down the street of camp survivors is another. Writing stupid things on media does not.
@mikecody Truth! And I even posted a similar quote from a major media outlet justifying the right of FB, Twitter et al to censor whatever they want to censor.
But, where were those justifications when Kaepernick wasn't rehired, and when it's suggested that the NFL can censor protests that are, without a doubt, costing their private business billions of dollars and alienating loyal customers forever?
The answer, of course, is that private media companies are free to be obnoxiously discriminatory as well. They can spew their hatred of NFL owners while extolling the hatred of protesters. The part that seems more unfair is that they have the biggest bullhorn. Maybe we just need to give everyone the same bullhorns.
When it comes to Erik Nielson's main point, I think I am with him in being a robust supporter of broad standards of free public expression. If Alex Jones wants to start self-publishing his own website, then that is up to him and I won't get in the way. Existing laws about libel and defamation would still apply, but it takes more than a hateful opinion to run afoul of libel/defamation law. The tougher question that we need to settle is about entities like Facebook and Twitter. Sure, they are private businesses and as such are entitled to different rules than a government entity, but we haven't yet decided what kinds of private businesses they are. Are they like a mall? If so, we already have decided that mall security can remove a loud strange guy spewing conspiracy theories in the food court to all passerby. Or are they like Verizon? We have also already decided that it is NOT ok for phone companies to deny phone service to somebody just because that somebody is deemed likely to participate in hate group conference calls. The "mall or Verizon" question, in my opinion, will be best settled through a blend of bottom up legislation and top down federal court decisions.
1
@Marc Schuhl
as with Twitter and Facebook, if one does not agree with their platforms, one does not have to use them. Television offers many different viewpoints on many different media programs. Viewers can use the channel changer if something is not acceptable, and users can sign-off if they don't agree with that social media.
2
@david.You missed his point and stated an obvious one no one misses instead.
Moving on...Marc, I think where many people are confused is in thinking that freedom of speech includes a right to be heard. That's definitely the case with the NFL protesters, who are free to protest on public property anywhere they want. Of course, they wouldn't be heard by as many, so they choose, instead, to force their political protests on innocent victims, just as your mall screamer does.
Mall screamers drive customers away, and mall security has every right and absolutely should evict such people from the premises.
The NFL has even more justification - they have fraudulently induced people into their stadiums with the promise of seeing a football game - not a hyper-partisan political protest.
I really surprised that an enterprising lawyer has not initiated a class action lawsuit for all NFL fans claiming false imprisonment (they have to forfeit their ticket/parking expense to escape), fraud, misrepresentation, infliction of emotional distress, and more.
The law (in the US) properly distinguishes between the publication of false facts and that of controversial opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. That said, private entities like Facebook are free to set their own rules about whether or not to publish opinions. That's the law and it is sensible. You don't like Facebook's point view? Don't patronize it.
Nielson's thesis is valid: The more enlightened view would be to ban utterances of false facts, not unfavorable or unpopular opinions. Facebook's decision to ban unpopular opinions by defining them as hate speech, though legal, is inherently dangerous. It is dangerous because major publications like Facebook, Spotify, NYT, et al can influence public opinion and consequently public policy (law). Opinion often ripens into law and not all opinions are fair, correct or valid especially those of major corporate entities.
2
@David Darman
With respect, you fail to understand the concept of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof; or abridging the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the PRESS; or the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
*emphasis mine.
The intent is that the GOVERNMENT has absolutely no power over the concept of free political speech or prohibiting it in any manner period. The Supreme Court ruled in the famous case of this saying someone does not have the right to stand up in a theater and yell fire when there is none. This is a dangerous precedence in any regard and to say that "false information" or as you put it" your own facts" forgets that such is in reality the absolute right of the individual in the US to have and express such. This falls to religion as well. The sad fact remains that 'hate" in any definition as repugnant as it may be in it various forms, if only expressed in words and not deeds, is in fact protected.
2
@David Darman
“The law (in the US) properly distinguishes between the publication of false facts ...”
No, libel aside, it absolutely does not.
@David Darman Facebook page views has dropped by half in the last two years, lost billions of looks...they keep going at it and they will not be relevant soon....my teenageers do not use Facebook, its for old heads....
What exactly IS Hate Speech? "One man's meat is another man's poison."
Granted the First Amendment does not allow the Government to silence Free Expression, however as in SLAPP's one can be silenced by the so-called Liberal Left and News Media by virtue of harsh exposure to friends and loved ones. Who wants or needs this! Better "to be seen and not heard" than to face ridicule.
I'm reminded of the pollsters stating one reason they had poor results in the 2016 election was people weren't honest about their answers concerning 'their' support of nominee Donald Trump, because they didn't want such ridicule.
Dennis
1
Banning speech of any kind is dangerous. Even on the airwaves, it is dangerous. Speech from many sources can be obnoxious and hateful. Much of it can be tuned out...or not tuned in. The antidote is for listeners and readers to make judgements, pick and chose. It can be instructive to listen to speech labeled hate in order to see/hear for oneself what is said, the context and nuance that only first hand knowledge can provide. We as a people rely too heavily upon others to make such judgements. For me, I prefer the original to any copy or other's interpretation.
5
Mr. Jones is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre. His outbursts are not just words, but are fashioned to cause harm to those groups(not individuals) he despises. He constantly makes up stuff and reverse engineers to get his followers to commit unseemly acts or crimes. This is a far cry from several other groups mentioned.
3
@Donald Green Every single day a cadre of pundits scream "fire" (trump / conservatives are killing us and killing america) in a "crowded theater" (24x7 cable channel hate spew + school rooms across america plus every entertainment icon). The false panic created by this hysterical vitriol is a crime against me and tens of millions like me.
1
@Donald Green completely wrong. Patrons in the hypothetical theater chose to be there and came to see the movie that played. If the movie featured someone yelling "Fire," it would not have been prohibited speech. In fact, I've been to theaters that had such films.
1
The wisdom of the ages has been "Freedom of Speech", and the Tech Giants decided they think they know better. FAIL!
1
@Yeziam12
The concept of "free speech" for the masses is less than 400 years old and only applies to government blocking unpopular speech. It has nothing to do with a private company deciding what they will allow their employees or services to say or do.
Social media is not government run so quit your whining
I read the examples cited by the author as mostly indicating we need to do a better job of defining what hate speech is hateful enough that it should be punished. I have a proposal. The line should be that it is unlawful to advocate for policies or actions that, if implemented, would lead to crimes against humanity under standards established at Nuremberg or similar later proceedings. The concept of a crime against humanity is that it is an inherently evil act that cannot be legitimized by national or local law. Hence, by definition, advocating for such acts is outside the realm of legitimate policy debate and political discourse.
Currently, white nationalist groups in this country often advocate for an ethnically cleansed America while being a bit vague, on purpose, about what they propose to do with people of color, Jews, etc. who do not voluntarily agree to somehow disappear. (And, for some reason, most journalists don't push them to explain). They can do this because of unfortunate judicial precedent that (more or less) shields them as long as they are not making an immediate threat on the lives of particular people. This is, I am sorry, nuts, and a failure of national will and conscience. It is also a slap in the face every time government has to tell citizens that it is powerless to do anything about people occupying the public square to call on government to end other people's right to exist.
1
@FJP You cross the very lines you suggest should be enforced. Black nationalist groups do the exact same thing you accuse white nationalists of doing, yet you ignore them. Religious groups, PETA zealots, global warming zealots, radical vegans, and eco terrorists, to name a few, have all made the same outrageous threats to non-believers of their orthodoxy.
Suffice to say, we already have the limitations in place to protect against some types of speech. Read up on the nine categories of unprotected speech promulgated by SCOTUS.
"But it’s false equivalence to label black nationalists and white supremacists alike as hate groups."
Why? Because one group has more in common with the writer's overall political outlook?
The equivalence isn't false at all, and both groups must be free to spew all the hateful rhetoric they like.
Free speech isn't always agreeable and correct. But it must remain free.
13
The insidious hate speech agenda is real but has nothing to do with silencing minorities. It's about silencing conservative voices. Period.
7
Hate is a very strong emotion that imo decent and reasonable people rarely if ever feel. Those who hate are certainly the minority and as a result can be silenced by not acknowledging their selfish screams. As a nation we foolishly empowered those who hate by electing to president a man who literally built a platform based on fear and hatred.
I say let them voice their hatred all they want. Just do not make the mistake again of allowing them a leadership position. The haters will always be there and silencing them will only allow them to creep back into positions of authority. We need to hear them in order to guard against them. Out of sight out of mind, that is how the diseased creep into positions of power.
1
I believe that the outlets that have banned Jones are privately owned. The NY Times does not have a free speech obligation to print each and every editorial and comment that comes its way. So neither does You Tube have to show every thing that is sent to it.
Jones has the right to say and believe whatever he wants but no privately held companies are obliged to print it or show it.
There are plenty of other outlets that seem to be happy to give him a forum.
And yes the same argument holds for BLM. I doubt if Fox shows much of what BLM is doing or saying nd that does not impinge on BLM's free speech rights..
2
@Edward Blau : I believe the issue would be: the private companies we are talking about are effectively the new mainstream media, not the fringe, so they need to be treated the same way we treated the television networks when they emerged. I realize the left is enjoying the current political bias that these new media monopolies enjoy, but it is short sighted. These modern media companies should not be encouraged to engage in political bias of any kind, it is too dangerous to live otherwise.
4
@carl The reason the TV networks were treated as they were was because they used the airwaves, which have a limited spectrum Those airwaves were considered a public resource, managed in trust for us citizens by the government.
The Internet doesn't run on such a physically limited resource—new fiber-optic cables can be added at will.
@carl you refer to a different era, Carl. When those TV networks emerged there were only three, with the result that they held tremendous sway over what people could learn.
Today, there are hundreds of TV networks and an infinite number of internet news sources. None of them have so much influence as to justify regulation.
But, which companies do? Google and FB primarily.
And, their influence is so much more insidious with the way those companies spy on our every activity to collect massive data on us and use it to microtarget us with exactly the content that is most likely to influence.
It's one thing to broadcast the same manipulative content to all viewers; it's another to know exactly what will manipulate me and then pound me with that content over and over.
Libel and slander are not protected speech. To claim that the families of the victims of school shootings made it up is not protected speech. The forum hosting these sorts of posts is liable for libel and slander too. Not all speech is protected equally. Alex Jones slanders and libels and the platform hosting his speech CANNOT facilitate his ranting and raving.
2
“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
7
Erik,
Give me a break.
You are taking one screaming man, who is sick, hurtful, livid and lying, and trying to make a case against against banning hate speech.
Let's just take ONE of Alex Jones' horrible lies and apply it to YOU and your family.
Alex said that Sandy Hook never happened.
What if YOUR kid had been shot?
How would it feel if Alex Jones said it never happened,
that it was a liberal hoax performed by actors so that guns could be banned?
What if he said that YOUR kid was actually not dead, it was all a lie. Your grief was a lie.
Alex Jones has harassed the parents of those poor children, posting their addresses ONLINE because the parents have objected to Alex's lies.
What if YOU were harassed and your wife and kids had to move after burying one of your own children? What if Alex's insane followers were stalking you, yelling at you, following you? Or worse, your surviving children?
What if Alex made your life, after losing a sweet child, miserable, attacking you on air, denying your child ever lived?
Would you still, right here, FIGHT for his right to free speech?
Really?
Of course you wouldn't.
Have some sympathy for those Sandy Hook families, the parents, grandparents and siblings of those kids.
This is only one hideous thing that Alex Jones has done. There are many.
Apple, etc. have every right to ban him. They did the right thing.
It is you who now needs to do the right thing, be rational and reasonable, and re-think your position.
6
@Katie If he wouldn't, I would. I have sympathy for victims, but not at the cost of creating more victims. There's a reason the Founding Fathers enshrined the Bill of Rights in the Constitution and not sympathy.
Just don't listen to Alex Jones. There's only two ways you can - by visiting his internet content or listening to his haters telling you what he said. You should avoid both of them. One is using offensive speech to convince his followers; the other is using offensive speech to convince their followers.
African Americans who deny their own racism tend to point to problems of their ancestors, such as slavery prior to 100 years ago, as a reason that blacks are allowed to be racist and it's "okay". That's like me saying that my white great-grandfather was victimized and poor, and that gives me a right to be a criminal in the modern world. It's ridiculous to justify violence and hatred based on pointing to what happened to some blacks over 100 years ago. A black man recently told me that ALL the problems of modern black people are the fault of whites. He refused to take any responsibility for his own problems or the problems of the black community. Therefore, he cannot solve the problems, because he blames whites for all of them. This kind of thinking will continue to destroy black culture, even if white people were missing from the equation. Because you cannot solve a problem if you don't take responsibility for it. I'm tired, as a white man, of being blamed for all of the problems of black people. In the past I supported civil rights for blacks, but I don't even do that any more. During the Black Lives Matter protest, I was beat up by six young black guys. They broke my nose, among other things. They took nothing, except my feeling that I could have any safety in America, with blacks on the rampage these days. And if I disagree with Black Lives Matter then I'm labeled "intolerant", "hateful", "a bigot", "a wruthless white male", etc., etc. ad nauseum.
13
@David Lieder The fact that their ancestors were, in fact, first enslaved by other blacks is lost in their arguments. The fact that today more than 40 million people are still enslaved, almost all being people of color enslaved by people of color, is never mentioned. The fact that America ended slavery in less than 100 years at a time when slavery had existed throughout the human race forever and in many cultures for a thousand years is never mentioned. The fact that the descendants of slaves brought to this country are, without a doubt, better off than they would be if their ancestors had remained in Africa is never mentioned.
So much is not talked about, unless it results in taking from some and giving to others.
1
The “fire” quote is the central problem with the argument, most of which I agree with.
The author understands the meaning of the fragment of the “fire” line, most people don’t
The full line is roughly “one may not shout fire in a crowded theater, *thereby causing a panic*,” aimed at the question of pre-publication censorship, the center of Near v Minnesota.
Near published a bigoted, libelous rag. Someone about to be skewered got an order stopping the press. The high court said “No, someone libeled can bring action claiming the article was libelous and damaging.”
Where the line on speech need be drawn is two-fold.
When a wealthy man on stage tells a whipped up crowd to beat not just hecklers, but those who hang a banner from a balcony, or wear opposition T-shirts and he might pay their legal fees, the “might” falling on deafened ears, clearly incitement to violence. Trump’s speech should have been presented to a grand jury.
But there’s a second kind if dangerous speech that mimics, over time, standard tropes of military training ‘improving’ a recruit’s ability to kill:
A) A group is subhuman, animal, or responsible for a crime committed by one member.
B) It is not wrong to kill subhumans/animals and right to kill all members of the dangerous group.
Especially when repeated, this is also an insidious possibly subconscious call to violence, and those producing such material, even if it is halted before violence is done, is just as criminal as Trump’s immediate call for violence
2
@Eatoin Shrdlu Nice clarification with one slight omission - when the heckler comes on private property to interrupt a private meeting with his/her stupid heckling, all those free speech protections disappear. No one has a right to free speech on the private property of others. That's why I can't come into your home and use my bullhorn to criticize the food you're eating.
And, while I'm sure you understand, others reading may not - renters of an auditorium have the same ownership rights in this regard as the owner of the property.
Alex Jones isn't just spewing hate speech. He's spewing lies and fear and fomenting hatred. It's interesting to listen to the right wing fundamentalists and constitutional concern trolls clasp their hands and clutch their pearls over the first amendment. To the New Republican, the Bill of Rights exists to be twisted and subverted as a weapon against people they hate.
In 2008, Rwandan media executives were found guilty of genocide for their daily broadcasts inciting hatred and violence against their own countrymen. An estimated 800,000 people were slaughtered in the worst case of genocide since the days of Nazi Germany. Of course, the Nazis were masters of using the media to rail against Jews and other minorities. In both cases, the media was a used as a weapon of mass destruction by a largely civilian population against perceived undesirables.
The far right wing, knows exactly what they are doing. Fox News and right wing front groups like Sinclair Media continue to buy up every last bit of media, stifling dissent, spewing lies and hatred with a non-stop narrative of "Real Americans" under assault by liberals, minorities, Mexico, etc.
There is no equivalency between a Holocaust denier and a Holocaust survivor. And there is no right for anyone to yell fire in a crowded theater. There are indisputable facts about global warming, gun violence, vaccines, and the value of life free from hate. Conservatives need to look inward to find the true source of their discontent.
2
Margarete Mitscherlich wrote about Hate:Do we really need to hate?
Knowing hardly any better book.
I largely applaud this argument, even if I might dissent here or there on some of the writer's assertions...
It is munificently stupid to think that today's would-be censors will necessarily be on your side tomorrow -- or a decade from now.
(Just look at the Left eating its own, endlessly finding new speech outrages from an ever more inwardly divided cluster of groups.)
Going back to at least the Hebrew Scriptures, the voice that cries out for moral reform is often viewed as a social reprobate by the powerful. Free speech (on balance) has been the greatest boon to human freedom of any freedom we have ever had, throughout history.
Ask yourself how the world might look if the witness of Alexander Solzhenitsyn had been lost. Or Gandhi, who to some British surely seemed to be preaching hate. Or Mandela.
There is a remarkable passage in Carl Jung's Man and His Symbols where he quotes Adolf Hitler describing Winston Churchill and the language Hitler uses would suggest (to a reader who knew no other history) that Churchill was the irrational hater and aggressor.
Do you really think, given the broad sweep of History, with its many power inversions and reversals, that such mediocrities as Charles Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Mayor De Blasio, or the average university speech czar has enough wit and wisdom to know just how much speech to limit?
Both Donald Trump and Mayor Khan of London share this particular fetish: Demonizing oppositional speech. That should give pause.
4
@John Linton
Re: "(Just look at the Left eating its own, endlessly finding new speech outrages from an ever more inwardly divided cluster of groups.)
Is that fact? Or just a sentiment you created in writing your post?
@Ellen Van Pelt
Please review the latest campus speech showdown between feminists and trans-activists about men who undergo sex change operations and then want to claim sorority with women.
There is a debate about whether these people are somehow importing "patriarchy".
Or look at the purge of lifelong leftist Bret Weinstein.
Or the absurd intersectional privilege ladders that attempt to apportion speaking priority based on a shared matrix of race, gender, disability, etc...
It's beyond parody.
REAL STORY: it’s ok to silence others until liberal groups such as Antifa, University protesters, & anti trump marchers (rent-a-mobs) are affected!
10
@Kevin
yet surprisingly none of those groups are promoters of Hate and don't show up to rallies armed to the teeth with guns . nor are their media channels stuffed full of plans to harm people and incite violence at those public gatherings.
The same cannot be said for the alt-right, KKK, & pro-trump groups.
@mike
Dear Mike,
Do you happen to notice that the so-called counter-protesters have: 1. The media to project a sympathetic view of them. 2. Law enforcement in strength to protect 'them'. and 3. 'Numbers' for a crowd that for a variety of reasons show up including to cause a fight by 'provocateurs' embedded in their midst!
Dennis
Alex Jones has a First Amendment right to place his propoaganda on his InfoWars site if he wants to but Apple, Facebook and others do NOT have an obligation to repeat his lies. In fact, if I were one of the Sandy Hook families who have been hounded and harmed by that jerk, I would strongly consider filing a multimillion-dollar libel suit against Facebook, Apple News, Google News and any other big company that distributes his lies. If the New York Times publishes a report that harm someone's reputation without doing any due diligence to check if that report is true, then it can be sued for a boatload of money. If the person libeled is not a public figure, he or she does not even have to prove actual malice to win a hefty judgement. Why should Facebook or Google News be any different?
2
@Dave
as a point of information, under federal law, internet media platforms cannot be sued over content posted by their users.
Yes, speech and expression should be allowed.
My question is why certain political entity's are promoting and paying for misanthropic perpetrators of said hate speech. And their followers are passively commodifying said evil to be dispersed 'n propagandized as they look the other way. Then to feign shock and hurt fee fee's that their sincere beliefs are just for civil discourse and an exchange of ideals. We all know that isn't true nor even remotely honest. Yet here is the leader of our country exercising his right to spew venom, lies and hate on an hourly basis.
Thus the weaponization and bastardization of another sacred right and amendment is further diminished. Perpetrated by the party that claims and espouses to love and cherish said documents.
Another soiled, trashed, demeaned American freedom.
Sad, bigly.
1
Ooops. Danger Will Robinson.
NYT worries that decades of hate speech from the left might be recongnized as hate speech from the left.
The Times is worried their support for an authoritarian system of government, their long effort to undermine democracy is going to backfire on them. Ooops.
11
@Shape Spot on - you nailed it.
About two weeks ago, the NYT published a column from a Southern correspondent which was accompanied by a photo of the Confederate battle, flag the stars and bars.
In Charlottesville last year, we saw Swastikas and the Confederate flag prominently displayed side by side in the hands of marching white nationalists.
Now, the NYT would never use a swastika prominently displayed as they did with the Confederate flag in that column.
NYT, when will you recognize that the Confederate flag is just as offensive as the swastika?
Now, the NYT doesn't condone child porn, pedophilia, or swastikas in the NYT, but allows the Confederate flag.
Embedded in that decision are community standards of what is and is not acceptable, and I believe that the utility may be in the discussion of what to describe as hate speech, and what should actually be banned in public and private forums.
The NYT received extensive criticism for an article which gave considerable ink to a white nationalist, and which created it's own form of false equivalency in allowing this person to air his views on a range of topics. I for one don't necessarily think that was wrong. What was distressing is that the NYT treated this hate filled little man as a rational person.
For now, the Confederate flag and the swastika represent the same thing. Get it?
4
@UTBG
Offense on your part, does NOT constitute required Silence on someone elses' part.
1
@UTBG Here we have a great example of hate speech. The Confederate flag is only offensive to some people. It is not per se offensive as UTMB claims. The vast, vast majority of people who display the Confederate flag do not do so out of support for slavery. The thought, really, never enters their minds.
Instead, to most of those people the flag is a very reasonable symbol of support for state's rights vs the tyranny of our federal government - a reality that the Founding Fathers blatantly tried to prevent with the Reserved Powers clause of the 10th Amendment. If you hook those people to a lie detector and ask what the Civil War was about, that is what they would truthfully say.
SCOTUS has allowed "community standards to prevail in limited cases - obscenity being the most cited - but otherwise there are only nine categories of unprotected speech, and displaying a flag is not one of them.
1
@ron lewis You are absolutely right regarding what many people think they know about the Confederacy, little realizing that the 'States Rights' argument came about as part of 'Lost Cause' mythology in the aftermath of the Civil War.
The State's Right that the Confederacy cited as the Casus Belli was the right to maintain slavery in their states against abolitionists, AND to extend Slavery to the new states of the West. The South Carolina declaration of war against the United states cites slavery 40 times. Tariffs, trade, etc. ? Zero.
Southern Slave State Confederates wanted to keep slavery. The Civil War on the Southern side was to keep their "State's Right' to maintain slavery.
Confederates are not racists.
Confederates are disappointed Slave Owners and slave supporters.
We should point out at every turn that these are exclusively WHITE people displaying Confederate flags, and all too often, swastikas.
The myth of the oppressive Federal Government is just more Confederate nonsense, BTW, 'Lost Cause' mis-information.
Real patriots should out Confederate traitors at every opportunity.
It all boils down to who decides what is the definition of hate and who should be silenced. Liberals are terribly thin-skinned when it comes to someone countering their opinion.
9
Good job bringing out the fact that J. Edgar Hoover first used the term "hate speech" to silence what amounted to political opponents. It's pretty obvious that this is what is being done to Infowars. These platforms need to be reminded that we're mature enough to decide these things for themselves.
3
@Danno
The first amendment is to protect speech we may find offensive. Period. Why does the left always want to mince words? Answer: because they always want to twist the constitution.
So, in other words, the author was ok with the fascist tactic of silencing someone he didn't like, but now he realizes how many of his favored groups also spew hate...
12
Trying to assign a hierarchy of value to speech is nonsense. You don't like someone else's speech, then counter it with your speech. As an old 60s liberal, I am saddened about what has happened on college campuses. With their speech codes, safe spaces, and active censoring of unpopular opinions, they have become exactly what the free speech movement fought against.
79
@Freods Except...I'm not sure the Constitution says you're allowed to say anything, any time, anywhere. While ideally, generally, you might hope a college would welcome verbalization of different views, no matter how hateful, most of what a college is responsible for is not providing a forum for free speech.
One can speak your ideas in lots of places, it doesn't have to be on college grounds. But the college also has to make sure its students are getting all the other things they are attending the institution to get, and that they feel safe doing so. Or the students will go elsewhere, and the college will eventually fail and no longer exist.
Maintaining the proper balance is very difficult, and mistakes will be made. The balance will be different depending on the type of school. We have to recognize that free speech does not mean mandatory listening.
Two thoughts -
1. In order for first amendment protections to apply you need a state actor. Facebook and the like are not state actors and therefore the constitution has nothing to say.
2. I get the very, very strong feeling that Mr. Nielson is a big fan of speech when it aligns with his political views. If we read this piece cynically, it could be interpreted to suggest that he would support government efforts to shut down "hate speech" if only it could reliably all of the people whose views he and of course other "reasonable" people disagree with. This is of course an unprincipled, dangerous way of thinking that many (seemingly) very liberal students, and apparently professors, have nowadays.
10
@JA
Nielson is coming from an intellectual tradition that posits that those in power often define reality in ways that allow them to hold on to that power at the expense of the powerless (e.g., Susan Brownmiller and definitions of rape).
There is no reason to be suspicious of his motives. The argument is compelling and deserves serious consideration.
What America needs is a counter movement against hate.
We Americans have the right to disagree with our government and with our fellow citizens. We should be able to have those disagreements with one another, vehemently, without resorting to dehumanizing the other side just so we can dismiss their arguments.
If we would follow Steven Covey's instructions to "seek first to understand before trying to be understood"we would all get along much better.
3
@Ronny/ As long as you agree with the democrat/progressive movement/gun control/abortion/lgbt/Your Michael Burger Moore on any university campus do you have free speech.
rvn70/71
Do not quash the medium. Humans are, in our current level of evolution, incapable of controlling our inner beings at any time, and especially when under the influence of private inner-thoughts releasing effects of drugs (ethanol, etc.). The current modes of communicating (broadcasting, actually) such as twitter, facebook,snapshat, etc. only provide the "lubricant" needed to slickly release those private inner- thoughts.
@Dr. Mandrill Balanitis What are these inner - thoughts? If you're going to call people racists then why not just come right out and say it?
The first problem is that private companies should not control social media. The device is in the public domain and should be controlled by the people. Thus, applying legal standards to behavior on the device. The protections of due process and equal protection of the law need to be in place in the world of social media, not the decisions of private citizens.
1
If the Internet had remained a national property, the barring of Jones, either a paranoiac crazy or someone out to make a fortune selling lies and vitamins, could not be taken down by these “free” sites, that make profits selling add and data on subscribers.
As AJ Libling said many years ago: “Freedom of the Press belongs to the guy who owns one”.
Jones is still free, and indeed continues to own or rent a web server for his extremely nasty sites.
But Apple owns Apple, Google owns Youtube, Facebook owns Facebook, each Social Network is owned by some corporate entity, and each one has the right to allow or not to allow something to be placed there.
I rent space on a server and have a registered domain I can take to many others if my server company doesn’t want to host me. I can even get my own.
But Alex Jones is as “entitled” to demand space on a Social Media site under the First Amendment as I am entitled to require the NY Times to post this comment.
Alex Jones has not lost any First Amendment rights to Internet access. What he’s lost is corporate sponsorship.
Corporations have the right to give him free space. He has the right to deny his sites and netcasts to any person he wishes not to host on the site his fans pay him to produce.
The other situations are nothing new.
In 1973, a member of the New York legislature to ban all state funding of student newspapers over a small Brooklyn College paper’s tasteless cartoon of a nun, a cross and caption “Oh God”.
It also failed.
3
@Eatoin Shrdlu - So if Verizon declared that they would provide cell phone service to ONLY Conservatives, you would be okay with that? After all, Verizon, Twitter and Facebook are all just methods of communicating, right? Why should Verizon, or Twitter, or Facebook be forced to provide service to people with whom they disagree?
6
@RLABruce If Facebook banned all conservatives you'd have more of a point, though as a private company, Facebook (or Verizon) can do that if they want to. Like a bakery deciding not to bake your cake if they don't like your sexual orientation. It would be a bad idea to refuse to do business with a large group of people, though, and it would ultimately cost them business. So I doubt any well-run business would decide to ban conservatives (or liberals, gays, straights, blacks, whites ... you get the idea).
Choosing not to do business with a given individual is a whole other thing. If your content is negatively affecting Facebook's business, they don't have to run it. They expect any association with Jones will become a drag on profits, so the right business decision is to show him the door.
"We're not forbidding free speech, we're forbidding hate speech"
"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others"
Get the drift? You can rationalize anything.
7
Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Spotify, etc are all private companies and whether we agree with them or not, they have the right to limit what people can do on their platforms.
That being said, I defend "Hate Speech" with the following caveats:
1 - It cannot be an incitement to violence.
2 - If there are patent lies. For example, the Holocaust didn't exist, no children were killed at Sandy Hook. People can disagree about opinions but facts are facts and cannot be debated.
I despise hate speech, and I despise the nastiness that surrounds it. Legislating it is not the answer however
1
Nielson: "... it’s false equivalence to label black nationalists and white supremacists alike as hate groups. Doing so ignores [various alleged differences]."
Nielson appears to be arguing that the SPLC is making a "false equivalence", yet he makes no effort to state the SPLC's definitions of "hate group", "black nationalist", or "white supremacist". Indeed, the SPLC doesn't use the term "white supremacist" in its list of ideologies.* The SPLC uses "white nationalist".
Nielson doesn't understand the SPLC's categories of ideology, so Nielson is attacking a straw man.
* Google "Ideologies site:splcenter.org".
Facebook, Youtube or any other social media organization silencing Alex Jones is not a restriction of freedom of speech. It is a decision by a private organization as to what values it wants to uphold and how they want to be viewed. Hate speech is like pornography - we know it when we see it. And we should reject these voices wherever they are. Despite Trump's assertions to the contrary, Nazis are not fine people, and we are under no obligation to give them a platform.
1
Hate is hate...whether from left or right or black or white. Not to be tolerated any longer.
1
@rpe123...a broad statement.so what is to be done.censorship,jail time,execution? what?
3
I consider almost everything thing I've heard from the left for the past thirty years to be 'hate speech'.
8
This is a complex and challenging subject with no easy remedy or total clarity. But some things can be made very clear.
1. "Censorship" is a government process of taking down information or publications, etc. We don't have that.
2. Private companies are the distributers of almost everything we consume. They now have enormous power and accordingly,
a huge responsibility. They penetrate every moment of our lives. Unless you have never read the news on your phone.
3. Facts and the truth are different than opinions or political positions from Fox and MSNBC. I lean left socially and I can't watch Rachel Maddow. She is just the antithesis of Hannity but both are just opinionaters who divide us. Not reporters.
4. Media and internet distributers would do the public a service by clearly labeling a story as reporting or editorializing. There was a time when newspapers and TV shows were clearly delineated that way. A broadcaster would relate the days events factually. Accuracy was a matter of pride. At the end of the show, perhaps he would give an opinion.
5. The fact that there is even a controversy about dropping Alex Jones from various channels is pathetic. The analogy could be allowing holocaust deniers and Nazis to have air or internet time. If you can defend their right to lie and mislead the less than educated naive public, you are indeed ignorant of history.
6. Hate speech and lies are not hard to identify. Crush them.
3
@Bob Bruce Anderson - WRONG. Censorship can--and IS--being done by groups other than the government. Witness the fact that not a single Leftist so-called "news" outlet has aired anything about Hillary's crimes and her collusion with Russia, while airing every minute of unsubstantiated innuendo about Trump's NONEXISTENT crimes and collusion with Russia. Mueller is literally investigating Trump for crimes that HILLARY committed!
1
@Bob Bruce Anderson - I’m thinking you missed the entire point of the article. You suggest that defining “hate” is a subjective process...which is correct....and then you state it isn’t hard to identify so-called hate speech.
1
@Bob Bruce Anderson
You had me up until 5 and 6. Hate speech is not easy to identify. Maybe to you it is, as it most likely just aligns with anything that offends you. I am sure you and I would not agree if given 100 examples of controversial material to evaluate. The left has never been more prudish than in these modern times, and never more in a hurry to clamp down on dissent in the name of dogma.
Most of the attempts to silence and stigmatize legitimate groups like Black Lives Matter is nothing but pure cynicism on the part of (mostly) right-wing politicians. They know what appeals to the "base" and they conjure up images of Black people rioting in the streets. It's the same kind of racist scare tactics that were used since Reconstruction. All but the most devoted and gullible see these attempts for what they are. Alex Jones was removed from social media sites because they are attempting to clear their sites of bogus accounts and those who spread violent, false and libelous material. Jones fits right into that description.
This nugget from the article is worth repeating a thousand times: “ 'hate' is a dangerously elastic label."
It's incredibly subjective in most cases, and these days it's common to hear people label as 'hate speech' anything they disagree with, or that makes them uncomfortable.
The only thing more absurd is when hate speech is defined as speech that is *intended* to hurt. Thought-crime anyone?
14
Nielsen conflates the suppression of speech by private companies with government suppression of speech, as well as the free speech rights of others to criticize and label speech, which in their opinion, is hateful.
Except when specific harm is imminent (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater), governments must not hinder free speech, and while the examples Nielson gives of government abuses of free speech rights are indeed chilling, they bear no relationship to private companies decisions not to rebroadcast speech which, for any reason, they choose not to. Simply put, if the New York Times chooses not to publish this comment, they are completely within their rights to do so, even if they consider the comment to be hateful.
A corollary to the principle of free speech is that free speakers should expect their speech to be rebutted, often in ways that seem ill mannered and falsely premised. Whether it’s BDS supporters or Black Nationalists, they should expect strongly worded disagreement, even if thats under the moniker of “hate speech.” Each will simply need to be more persuasive than the other, underdog status notwithstanding.
The generally private status of media organizations is a two edged sword. Yes, they are entitled to censor, but there are a diversity of outlets, each with their own audience demographics, thus offering a myriad of opportunities for speech platforms.
And... when speakers manage to tone down the nastiness, most platforms will welcome them with open arms.
3
The left can't WAIT to silence dissenting opinion. Like when they tried to imprison people for ridiculing "global warming".
10
What? So freedom comes at a cost? I may disagree with what you're saying but you have the right to your opinion, and to voice it. That's what freedom of speech is all about. Whether you're a BLM supporter or a KKK member. Making threats to harm someone is not free speech but a little revolution every now and then is a healthy thing. If we don't like the form of government we have it's our duty to change it.
2
It's interesting that anti-semitism appears to inevitably be part and parcel of the protests that the columnist so eagerly lauds. It doesn't help one minority group to inveigh against another.
2
It seems to me that Dr. Nielson's primary fear is that efforts to demonize and silence the speech of the bad guys (whites) might backfire and also be used to silence the speech of the good guys (blacks).
Does anyone besides me see a problem here?
6
"If we become overzealous...to limit so-called hate speech, we run the risk of setting a trap for the very people we’re trying to defend."
This is a truism--due to "overzealous"-- excessively zealous--too much.
Yes 'hate' and 'love' can apply to inanimate things--love ice cream; hate chopped liver. They can mean intense like or dislike--desire or aversion.
But regarding people, love in all it's variations is care of one sort or another--to care is to help, benefit, protect from harm. Even Eros--sexual love.
Hate is a not mere aversion to someone else's benefit--that's "green" envy (the sin). Hate is a desire to hurt or harm. Hate is enmity; enmity is for enemies.. Enemies are to be hurt, harmed, weakened or destroyed--in self defense.
Banning hate speech, is banning calls for treating others as enemies to be hurt, harmed, weakened or destroyed.
Sometimes people really are enemies--Nazis for example.
But the burden is on those who would express hatred to prove their targets really threaten life and limb--so that harming them is self defense--to prevent wrongfully being harmed.
Racists, misogynists, phobics of all sorts typically hate from anger, fear, hate, or feeling threatened. But these can be rational (for good reason) or irrational (for no good reason--thus disorders, mental dysfunction or illness).
Prohibiting hate speech (unless proven justified) is prohibiting sick calls for harming or hurting others--a minimum condition for civility.
3
Propagandists pretending to be progressives muzzle any conservative uttering and the so called 'media' denies it.
And the unwashed masses have taken notice.
Enjoy the ride that is coming, I know I will.
XOXO
14
Silence hate speech!!!!!! If we silenced hate speech, then the liberal media should be silenced. I've been on the planet for 66 years and I have never witnessed a more concerted effort by the liberal media to destroy POTUS, this country, and the Will of the People with their endless attacks. Fake news is putting it mildly. The mantra of the liberal media is it's not the news, it's our news. If we really care about "hate speech", let's start at the top.
10
I'm finding it very difficult to read a article that renders strange and unrecognizable of events I lived through.
"Impatient with the lack of progress for African-Americans after the civil rights movement, leaders like Malcolm X routinely inveighed against white America using inflammatory rhetoric."
Seriously? "After the civil rights movement"? Malcolm X didn't live till the end of the civil rights movement!
SPLC is somehow aligned with J. Edgar Hoover thinking because they say some hate groups are actually blacks? Wow!
And then we're supposed to believe that all the dislike for the BDS movement is because there are blacks in it? On what planet? Some of the hatred for BDS is coming from pro-Likud Americans, and some of it is just due to the fact that they don't brook any criticism and demand others speak in an approved manner. We are allowed to participate in your free speech, aren't we Erik?
Oh, and we're supposed to love Louis Farrakhan, even though in modern Women's March parlance he's a misogynist in addition to the anti-Semitism we're all familiar with, which we're supposed to ignore in favor of something higher and truer?
And is that fear or hatred you're trying to instill by telling people to be scared of the FBI if they marched in the Women's Marches because there were people there who "revered" Assata Shakur? Which court cases are justice, and which convictions should be quashed, and should it be done by race? She was convicted of murder, not hate speech.
3
Well....yeah. The "resistance" is nothing but hate speech; hate against America, hate against borders, hate against success. They speak with bike locks and other objects to the back of conservative heads. If there's no hate, there's no "resistance".
12
@Biff Tannen Don't forget hate of our President and and a constant attack on the workings of our US Government. Good Comment.
Thank goodness for the First Amendment! Without it how would we know who
the assh_les are?
2
@seeker
the first amendment applies only to government action blocking speech. Private companies can do as they want.
Its funny how R's are all about unshackling business from intrusive regulation.....right up to the point business does not do what they want them to.
@seeker
you like so many fail to read and comprehend our Constitution and its amendments.
The 1st Amendment protects your speech from GOVERNMENT intrusion. Private businesses are not controlled by the 1st Amendment. Even then you are not given a guaranteed platform from which to speak, meaning you can be driven off that soapbox on the street corner.
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled your boss can fire you for just about any reason related to how you behave in public that the boss feels presents the business negatively. That includes you showing up to rally's or posting stuff on Social Media.
learn to read and comprehend.
Whether a society is better off censoring hate speech or confronting it is an important thesis. But instead of arguing it, the author muddles it with awful examples. What does Farrakhan’s virulent anti Semitism have to do with social justice?
7
@arden jones
You just made the author's point. One man's social justice warrior is another man's social justice terrorist spreading hateful poison.
First of all the author engages in alight of hand between going from a private company banning a speaker from their platform to the criminalization of speech. No one has a first amendment right to have their message carried by a private corporation. If the Times refuses to print this comment and all the other comments I post they have not violated my first amendment rights, only the state can do that. As for the designation hate speech, I share the concern when a governmental entity uses this term. Often it can be used to silence content that is disapproved of. Regarding Alex Jones and some Black Nationalists there are better categories to use. As is being shown at his trial Alex Jones engaged in a practice of defamation that has endangered the lives of the victims of the Newtown massacre. No you do not have a 1st Amm right to accuse someone of faking their child's death and encouraging your followers to burn their house. Finally to address the notion that progressive groups that have played a vital role in social progress could be accused of hate speech. In the case of Black Lives Matter I simply deny that they have so engaged. In regard to Malcolm X and Farrakhan the case is more complex. First it might be noted that Farrakhan called for the death of Malcolm and was probably involved in his assassination. Then there is the simple point that saying all white persons were literally satanic beings, as Malcolm did before his Hadj, was in fact hate speech. Is that hard to say?
1
Democrats consider facts pointing out the failures of their policies to be hate speech.
15
@David
Nonsense. … It's the conservatives -- particularly the Trumpista-brand -- who have dominated the "labeling" (name-calling) industry in politics, calling liberals "libtards" and "haters", etc. (and worse).
@David
lying tripe from the low information deplorables' basket.
The freedom of speech was always bound by commonly understood and accepted boundaries. We know the difference between demonstration and rioting. The obvious distinction is that the freedom ends when other people get hurt.
Jones willingly and knowingly hurts people. He should be contained to whatever degree necessary to make him stop and take responsibility, no matter what punchlines and exploitative appropriations he hides behind. Online trolls are the equivalent of lynch mobs marauding in our virtual streets.
Social media is new. Laws have been created to deal with violence in the streets. Laws need to catch up with violence in our virtual spaces.
28
@Frank S. I'm not a listener of Jones. But in the past I investigated and listened to him a few times because of his fame. Curiosity satisfied with those few times. So, I stopped. But I heard him make it clear that he was not advocating physical violence. Your obvious error is equating speech that advocates physical violence with speech that hurts feelings like yours. Won't fly. Patrick Henry, the firebrand who incited the American Revolution, declaimed: "But as for me, give me liberty or give me DEATH." Hmm, Facebook and Google definitely would have censored that kind of hate speech on their platforms, if only they could have. I'm sure it led to physical violence with men shooting at each other. Yeah, that's the ticket, if only we could have de-platformed Henry, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Madison. Think of all the lives we could have saved. Get it now?
@Frank S.
Online trolls are not equivalent to lynch mobs. If I tell a guy online that he should stop his car on the side of the road, throw his keys out the window, walk away from the car and into oncoming traffic because he's ( or she, or it) is a lousy excuse for a human being and couldn't navigate through traffic if they had a tesla car and a private road with no one on it,
it would NOT be akin to lynching, as I did not physically throw the guy out of his car, did not take his keys and throw them, did not physically walk him out into oncoming traffic. The difference being lynching is a physical, violent, and final activity. Words are words. You can walk away from them, or you could cut your wrists, but that falls entirely on to you.
Words are words. Period. End of story.
However, masked babies who physically attack a person's right to assemble and speak freel-notably ANTIFA- ARE the problem, and they're NOT the so called right.
1
@Frank S. Speech--words strung together to convey your meaning--do NOT equal action, no matter how many times you say it. We do indeed have laws about speech, such as the famous "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater." The First Amendment applies to ALL of us, and protects ALL of us, not just you and your opinions. I don't care for Alex Jones, the guy gives me a headache. However, since I don't like him, I simply DON'T LISTEN TO HIM.
Our laws about violence apply to physical action--I can't walk up to you and bash you over the head with a bike-lock for instance, simply because I don't agree with you. Your right to free speech ends at the tips of your fingers. If you can't tell the difference between speech and action, you have a problem. Not me.
1
Good article. The only sad thing is that it even needs to be written. The answer to "hate" speech is more speech, not suppression of speech. Of course, we American have known and preached freedom of speech for almost 250 years -- it's called the First Amendment. The suppression/censorship of hate speech is "not who we are."
9
Bad article. If you can’t tell the difference between George Wallace and Malcolm X, shame on you. Further this isn’t a first amendment issue. Facebook et are not governed by the first amendment. This is the same problem we see when whites demand an honorable platform for the racism of the odious Charles Murray. He has no right to speak at Middlebury. Any gutter will do. Finally to come full circle we have moral responsibilities to uphold good values.
YOU, meaning anyone, have a right, subject to certain conditions, to stand on a street corner and shout about things you believe even if all the wheels in your wagon have fallen off. YOU, meaning anyone, do not have a right to stand in my living room and shout your beliefs at me.
The issue in regard to Alex Jones is whether he has a "right" to a free forum on youtube and other outlets. Traditionally, access to public media was earned. This ordinarily involved considerations of education, personal background, talent, intelligence and the coherence of an argument being advanced. In other words, for these reasons and the limitations of space, one might say that 99% of the population was censored from public media.
In times past, people on the far fringe were limited to poorly produced newsletters sent to co-believers. They were "censored" by the judgements of editors and producers, condemned to bang around in their own little distorted worlds.
Jones should have been taken down from youtube, etc. because his arguments have no basis in fact. There are elements in our society who are actively seeking to create permanent divisions that cannot be healed. They seek profit from those divisions.
Those who run social media companies are fearful of restrictions, in part, because removing anyone implies they approve of the ones who remain and thus they, the companies, are responsible directly for what appears. We are in a new, difficult era and a long period of adjustment lies ahead.
2
@Doug Terry I have to push back on your assertions a bit. YouTube, Spotify, and other similar social media sites don't "Stand in your living room" unless you invite them by actively clicking a link.
Yes, in times past, we had gatekeepers to the viewpoints we were allowed access to. I find it interesting that you actively support a return to gatekeepers of information and discourse.
What I find troubling about this situation is that social media doesn't 'blast' opinions and information at you like a radio or TV, where you have little control over the exposure besides the on-off switch.
Social media content creators require your active engagement to be heard. You HAVE to actively select their content to be exposed to it. By banning them, social media companies are deciding on behalf of their consumers what those consumers are ALLOWED to CHOOSE to be exposed to.
And that is troubling on many levels.
3
@Doug Terry A lot of his arguments actually do have FACT appended to them. And as long as he isnt inciting violence, like Maxine Waters is, and ANTIFA are actually doing, he has the right to speak. Only a Marxist would say otherwise.
4
@Jeff
Waters has NEVER incited violence, but the
Alt-Right has and so has Trump and so many of the Religious Right and they do so daily and in public
There's hate speech, and outright lies used to sway opinion.
It's no different than someone lying about a clinical study in order to get a drug approved. Doing so might influence people's view of the drug, but it's not free speech.
The author's reference and description of BDS is entirely (and likely intentionally) inaccurate. BDS (like most Palestinians) do not recognize the existence of Israel and want it to be wiped from the maps. BDS pretends to be an an organization that believes in non-violent boycotts over claimed oppression. However it is widely recognized on both sides of the aisle that it is an organization that simply does not want Israel to exist. This is why many states (and countries) have taken the steps to prevent public funds to be spent on company that supports BDS. The author's opinion is not based on any facts on this issue but rather her own prejudice against Israel.
12
@jon
I do not like the BDS movement when expressed by people who clearly are either pro Palestinian and believe they were wronged when Israel became a state or by people who are do not complain when other counties do what Israel has done but do complain when Israel has done it.
These people at best do not care if Israel goes away and some who do want it destroyed.
There are however some in the BDS movement who are not against Israel and honestly feel that Israel has no right to the West Bank and are non violent.
I don't agree with them but I don't think we should censor them as long as they do not censor us.
Guess what? Until all, say, private property is abolished, all will be subject to this "hate" mind control methodology.
@artjoe, Huh?
Attempting to limit hate speech is like the dog trying to bite the train that ran over its tail. It turns out not to be such a good thing. Laws have never been an effective means to limit the hate that exists in the human heart. Education and enlightenment are needed where hate exists, not statutes and regulations. It is natural and just to hate injustice, and we must not punish those who would speak out against it. Unfortunately, it's also natural for bigots to hate minorities, and that hatred is going to find its way into words. Until there is a sense of moral outrange against injustice and bigotry by a majority of the majority, unhealthy hate speech will find a comfortable place in our dialogue.
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
1
As an individual who acquired a disability entering my 20s ('90) and, since being able to return to work in '92, I've spent my entire adult 'life' working for nonprofits and in the public sector.
Given my knowledge and support of civil rights issues, esp., those involving the disabled, it's curious to me why there's a refusal to accept by the general public-at-large that racism can exist against white non-Hispanics, as well.
Call it, label it however one sees fit but the hate speech smells just as foul.
2
@Coffee Bean
@Coffee Bean
That refusal is the result of "white guilt" over actions taken by people a century dead.
Racism is a bad thing on the whole, but it is not the sole province of whites, nor is it the sole responsibility of whites to address.
What you point to is that every ethnic group holds preference to its own group and other groups are considered less than their own.
What the people who constantly want to argue that slavery was bad, even though it is long gone, fail to acknowledge is that Black Tribesmen captured other Black Tribesmen and SOLD them to White people. The people blaming only whites for slavery cannot admit that blacks sold blacks or their racism complaints become childish whines.
Asians had slaves, Whites had slaves, Blacks had slaves, Latino's had slaves. Pick a country pick an ethnic group and look to their past. They owned some other group(s) at some time in the past.
100, 200, 300 years ago life had no value as we see in Western nations today. If you were not the leader, wizard, or religious flim-flam man of the tribe, you were not worth a thing. you were expendable. The group did not value you and you had no time during your day to sit around doing nothing and whine about how mean folks were to you. You had to work to live, unlike today.
@Coffee Bean
That refusal is the result of "white guilt" over actions taken by people a century dead.
Racism is a bad thing on the whole, but it is not the sole province of whites, nor is it the sole responsibility of whites to address.
What you point to is that every ethnic group holds preference to its own group and other groups are considered less than their own.
What the people who constantly want to argue that slavery was bad, even though it is long gone, fail to acknowledge is that Black Tribesmen captured other Black Tribesmen and SOLD them to White people. The people blaming only whites for slavery cannot admit that blacks sold blacks or their racism complaints become childish whines.
Asians had slaves, Whites had slaves, Blacks had slaves, Latino's had slaves. Pick a country pick an ethnic group and look to their past. They owned some other group(s) at some time in the past.
100, 200, 300 years ago life had no value as we see in Western nations today. If you were not the leader, wizard, or religious flim-flam man of the tribe, you were not worth a thing. you were expendable. The group did not value you and you had no time during your day to sit around doing nothing and whine about how mean folks were to you. You had to work to live, unlike today.
@mike
There is no disputing the horrific nature of slavery and the mistreatment of an entire race of individuals 1st taken to the Caribbean in the 16th Century by British pirates and then Portuguese traders under the rule of the king of Spain as a profitable enterprise. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR200609...
Despite the divide that exists among the races and national origins, America's melting pot is becoming a more and more like a cauldron of vitriol of hate due to the political chasm dividing us.
Watch the documentary "Charlottesville" on PBS that clearly demarcates the effects of hate speech and its deadly threat to freedom in the United States. Chilling. This column has some good points but the question is what is more important == speech or lives?
@Betsy Herring Well, considering that thousands of soldiers have died to defend our freedoms--including speech--I'm going to say the answer to that question is not what you think it is...
1
To begin with, hate speech will never go away, and neither will racism.
The sad fact of the matter is that they're both so intricately woven together in this country's past and present that they will never be extricated.
This is by no means an excuse to allow the hate-filled rantings of people like Alex Jones to continue without reproach, because the U.S. Constitution allows for both sides to be heard. And resistance against his venal outpourings is the only alternative to maintaining a modicum of civility in our society. Otherwise we are all victims.
2
@N. Smith Interesting how you cite resistance as the "alternative to maintaining civility". Did you mis-speak, or are you actually saying that we should abandon civility in the face of blow-hard opinionated claims of dubious merit?
That is a dangerous standard.
Because who decides by what measurements such a standard is set? Popular sentiment? Should we review the historical danger of "popular sentiment" in this country and others?
@N. Smith Thank you for your submission.
We'll notify you via email when your comment has been approved. I wonder what the odds of my responses being 'approved' are. Just more censorship....
@JB
I'm saying we must resist such hateful speech in order to maintain a modicum of civility ijn our society.
And ultimately, that is something every individual must decide for him/her self.
I hope this explanation clears things up for you.
Seems ironic that the reason people can disagree with Alex Jones's opinions is because he was able to freely speak his ideas in the first place.
9
It seems to me that Mr. Nielson is attempting to excuse and normalize hate speech and to establish a double-standard.
The notion that we have a system of preference as pertains to the right to hate speech, incitement or violent-flirting movements, according to our ethnicity, is anti-American-unity, dangerous, and, frankly kind of evil.
There appears to be a growing sense of entitlement for any person or group that can claim to be aggrieved to say and even do anything that violates decency, truth and respect.
Such notions will not even help the groups they intend, but will discredit the movements themselves, as with the Trumpism reflex.
However, never mind the consequences, of failing to achieve objectives and creating a backfiring effect, such ethos is evil in and of itself.
Entitlement is never justifiable, by anyone, and is the ugliest human trait and leads to an ugly society.
When you cease respecting your fellow citizens, why do you, yourself, deserve consideration on any level?
I am not making an argument to legislate against hate speech (though I believe that any incitement to violence or implied physical threat should be consistently and severely prosecuted for it infringes on the free speech--and physical safety--of others).
However, I am making the argument that hate speech be marginalized, shunned and discredited, not rationalized, enabled and normalized.
Those who promote double standards justify the very ugly ethos that discriminates against them.
3
I'd add that groups like Black Lives Matter, pro-BDS, anti-immigrant groups, various white supremacists, and such, all have rights to "free speech" in the sense of no government suppression, but their opponents also have rights to free speech which can include calling them "hate groups" whether they like it or not.
2
A big problem with allowing Jones and others who lie airtime on social media is that people tend to view what they see on these platforms as "news". They equate "information" with "fact". Alex Jones peddles outrageous conspiracy theories and hate with such a forceful, angry manner that convinces his followers. These people are vulnerable to being manipulated...some because they are ignorant and otherd because they are angry at the world and look for reasons to hate. Sadly our president is one of those people.
Social media sites have the right and the obligation to monitor and limit what goes on their platforms. We can seek out such rhetoric as Jones peddles in other ways. And people have the right to believe what they want to believe. By comparing Jones to black nationalists the author conflates types of angry rhetoric without historical context. That in essence is a big part of the problem with how social media reaches so many people; people who have little to no ability to see the difference between a person who is angry due to oppression vs an angry white guy who fears losing his position as oppressor.
2
Agree with the overall premise of the article. "Hate Speech" is an old, insidious tactic to silence those one disagrees with and will more than likely have unintended consequences. Just wish the NYT would be genuine. The hate speech movement has nothing to do with silencing minorities. It is about the radical left silencing conservative voices. Period. But since the NYT is a leader of left wing voices they will not report (lie through omission) that fact. Truly a shame and an example of why many people consider the MSM the enemy of truth.
16
To be free or not to be free, that is the question! My guess is "the people" will choose freedom in the end!
The solution here is, for those that are being censored from these left-wing 'private platforms' that have the right to censor anyone they please because they 'own' the private companies' platforms. is to set up their own alternative private platforms to compete in a free market of ideas. Then it's down to, 'May the best men and women win in the battle over freedom of speech and the First Amendment!'
My bet is the platforms that allow all speech to be aired will be the winners. The echo chambers of censored speech will dry up and blow away. Consumers from both sides of the ideological divide will by nature flow to the platforms that honor the First Amendment.
5
@Celest
1.4 billion Chinese lost it entirely.
This hopeful nonsense about "the people" is just that: nonsense.
People in the US are either cheering the silencing of speech at the moment, or sitting silently by watching it happen.
Our schools have failed, and I believe intentionally, to educate our children on the importance of our fundamental rights. Unchecked immigration has brought people from different cultures who do not value free speech, and do not understand the direct link between the ability to speak freely, and the success of America that drew them to it.
It amazes me when people just assume free speech will continue to be allowed to them forever. Free speech is an anomaly. The United States of America is an anomaly. It is not the norm, CENSORSHIP IS THE NORM.
If you do not fight against this tyranny, in your daily life, it WILL be gone. How often do you self censor your ideas today? Why?
Because if you don't, you are afraid you will be ostracized and your personal or professional life will be affected. All people do this, to some extent, but today it is pervasive. Political correctness has fashioned all public discourse into a nice neat little box, and that box gets smaller with each passing day.
Free speech IS dying. This is not a drill. This is real.
3
@Celest
for you to win that bet of yours, all the far right hate spewing sites need to do is establish a bank that will create a private credit system to allow hate speakers to make money from their social media, Visa Amex PayPal etc block hate groups.
Then they must create a platform for those speakers that is profitable from some method, say from advertising.
Then they must find advertisers who are willing to have their names associated to hate speech and willing to pay for the eyeballs of the hate speakers.
Good luck with that bet of yours.
This is downright hilarious! He argues that banning "hate speech" is risky, because it might be used against left-wing hate groups. So why not simply be a bit more honest and say what you mean: only "right wing" hate speech should be banned. That's what the Left really means, isn't it?
10
@Tyler kent ...Exactly
1
What about hate speech against President Trump? Should that be prohibited?
12
Do you not understand the difference between criticism of a man and his personal abhorrent behavior which has a tremendous impact and free access to media vs diminishing a groups human legitimacy? The legitimate comparison is that hate diminishes the hater.
To me its actually a matter of antitrust regulation rather than freedom of speech. When a small number of big tech companies have become so dominant to as effectively become arbiters and gatekeepers of public discourse, is it time to question whether they have become too big and powerful?
10
@KeyserSoze
nice try but you lose, again. Speech is not an anti-trust issue and never has been. It never will be. By claiming it is the government would hit the First Amendment head on at 200 mph, and lose.
The opposite of "love is love" is "hate is hate." But it is true, any word, 'love' or 'hate' included, can be abused without context. How often abusers, usually men, abuse their spouses, usually women, in the name of love. Of course, it is no love but jealousy and possessiveness.
There is no doubt the "Black Lives Matter" movement got played in the last election because some people were confused by just the label. Looking back, did those cop-killing rap music sow the seed of hatred as well? This is not to make excuses of police brutality and shooting cases. However, two wrongs don't make one right. To lower the tension, all involved parties need to tone down the rhetoric and approach one another with respect. That is what community policing is all about. There won't be overnight change. It is a process and there will be setbacks. However, it is still better off than an eternal stalemate. Or worse, got played by some foreign power to fragment and even fracture this country
2
I see no reason why Facebook, Apple, and others can ban people like Alex Jones. Its their product they can do what they want to create their online communities. Alex Jones and others do have their on websites where they can say what they want. If we get to the point where we selectivity censor the web then we have crossed the line. I remember when I was protesting the Vietnam war and ineaquitly back in the late 60s and shopping malls would not let us hand out leaflets. That became a free speech issue. Blocking them from the web completly would be a step in the wrong direction.
1
The term "hate speech" barely means anything because it's so vague. If we said "racial bigotry" there'd be no chance for the right wing to co-opt the argument against liberals.
@Duncan M
"Racial bigotry" does not work any better than "hate". Basically, any reference to any group, white, black, Hispanic, could qualify. No?
“...rather than the trafficking in fake news.” Therein lies the answer. I believe that is exactly what they were reacting to, as opposed to hate speech. In addition to hate speech, he has been spewing out lies for years and using those lies to yell fire in a crowded theater.
In the UK Boris Johnson, although Polls show the British public overwhelmingly support him, is facing an investigation and could be disciplined by Conservative party bosses and that ever so nice school teacher, our Prime Minister Theresa May after saying women in burkas looked like 'letterboxes' and 'bank robbers' If it comes to the worst I suppose Boris will have to fall back on his Degree in Classics from Oxford, just like Dr Alice Wiedel; heading up the AFD Party, the anti Merkel (alternative for Germany) has to fall back on her Doctorate in Chemistry. Come on, wake up NYT and smell the coffee they are not all 'deplorables' and Free Speech is not an aberration even if 'liberal' politicians in the North Atlantic democracies have kept us all watching our backs as they construct Orwellian speech codes and guidelines on civility to soften the impact of unpleasant ideas. Once their PC enforcement and exclusion have done their work, this assumption becomes almost irresistible; and it is relied on to produce a fortunate result: self-censorship. So we stay out of trouble by gagging ourselves. Most people (the highly literate Media are among the worst) believe that what is good for them will be good for others. Meanwhile, over in Sweden as in the rest of Europe liberal holy grails are being shattered at the PC altar of Mount Moral - the waters are rising for the Liberal cognoscenti - time to 'man' the lifeboats.
2
Virtually every example the author mentions, e.g., Louis Farrakhan, certain extreme acts by Black Lives Matter and the Black Panthers, BDS, Assata Shakur, etc., are cringeworthy and do not help the author's argument. Hate and vitriol, even when they emerge from misery and injustice, cannot be used as a justification of hate and vitriol.
We do need to rethink the notion that every form of speech is fine because it can be countered by other speech. First, we no longer live in an age when the most persuasive argument wins -- no, the loudest argument wins even when completely divorced from facts. Second, hate speech does lead to physical violence and is the most vile version of loud speech in our society today. Third, social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc., have been amplifiers of hate speech and (actual) fake news.
We do need to restore civility. We need to get money out of politics. We need to support real journalism. Social media companies should be held to the same standards of responsible speech as newspapers and face consequences that emerge from published content.
5
This is not an original idea here, but free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of said speech.
I'm looking at you, Mr. Jones.
What it really comes down to is what is being censored is "political speech" not necessarily "hate speech." If people have a different political opinion than you or say something that you disagree with it might 'sound' hateful to you. The vast majority do not act out violently on these words, but only a few nutjobs on either side. There are all sorts of websites on the left and right that use extreme language that I may or may not agree with, but I would never demand any viewpoints to be censored completely, not even the viewpoints I don't like. What happened to the generation that use to say all the time, "I may not agree with all the you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"? We all used to agree that everyone has the right to speak. Speech should not be punished, only actions that harm others should be punished. This all political censorship, nothing more or less, and because one side holds all the cards (or all the internet platforms being utilized to express political opinions) suddenly we have no First Amendment rights anymore? Yes we still do. All we have to do with walk away and start up our own platforms that don't censor us. It's just like if that baker doesn't want to bake your cake, well then, find another baker who will! Why give your money to a baker that refused to bake that cake you want anyhow?
7
Please. There's a big difference between moronic garden variety hate speech and hate speech that is filled with ongoing outright slander and lies. What Apple, Facebook, Youtube, and Spotify chose to do would not have remotely limited the ability of the organizers of the Million Man March or the Women's March to organize.
I have no sympathy for Jones, but agree some criticism of these arbitrarily-enforced social media 'user agreements' is due!
Infowars traffics in disinformation (also vitamin supplements and homeopathy -- but mostly lies), but as dangerous and discomforting as Alex Jones's conspiracy blather can be, 'liberal democracy' cannot truly thrive if speech is not truly free, or if the ties of our common citizenship seem to take second place to political tribalism, ideological affinities, and the subjective whims of a few Silicon Valley tech billionaires...
Books won't stay banned. Thoughts won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. If history is any guide, censors and inquisitors inevitable fail, in time. No matter how zealously they attempt to enforce an orthodoxy of ideas. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas!
2
Alex Jones was one of the few people more outrageous than myself. That gave me leeway. If they can silence him they can silence anyone. Funny how the people who hate him say he's a conspiracy theorist and simultaneously want to overthrow our President and ICE.
6
@Kirk Patrick
Yes, but don’t forget that hating Trump, ICE and anything from the right is righteous, not hateful. Never, ever forget that The NY Times is the final arbiter of what’s right!
1
How do you silence something you can’t define?
2
If it was actual hate speech that were being silenced, the left would cease to exist on media platforms across the globe within hours. What you really want to do is silence the right by misappropriating the English language and corrupting the meaning of the word 'hate'. Big difference.
9
Something must occupy the space between having a thought and coming to a conclusion and solution and that is thoughtful identifying and consideration of the problem instead of simplifying and condescending hate and bias. True left wing bias is often subtle yet pervasive, right wing bias is often hateful and violent. Both need thoughtfulness, humility, and listening. Your statement fails in all regards.
I think censoring videos of terrorists beheading people, or videos of terrorists talking of beheading people, is a fair thing to do. But it tooks years for social networks to realize that.
On the other hand, I think censoring nipples is a stupid thing to do. But social networks haven't realized that yet.
Using common sense is easy, after all.
Sorry, dude. Whatever the Social Justice Warriors decide is what's right.
9
Impatient with the lack of progress for black-Americans after the civil rights movement, leaders like Malcolm X routinely inveighed against European-Americans using inflammatory rhetoric.
The problem with Alex Jones isn’t “hate speech.” It’s “lying.”
He’s been lying consistently for years, and his lies hurt people —- such as people who lost their children or family/friends in Connecticut, and people who suffered over pizzagate.
Facebook et al. have taken the weasel’s way out of the problem by slapping a “hate speech” sticker on Jones. They should have banned him for spreading lies, consistently. The distinction is subtle, but it’s savage: they can define hate speech any way they like. But targeting misinformation campaigns —- well, that standard might just be too objective.
3
WOW! Long live free speech. Long live free thinking and free will. Thanks for giving the free world your perspective. Sincerely, MV
2
Lies are the most pernicious form of hate speech..... but trying to ban evil is a poor option.... and serves 'evil's' purpose.
What we need are critical readers, critical thinkers, an informed citizenry, and a society healthy enough to care....
Let Alex Jones spew.... and sue him if you can. Has he caused more damage than Fox? than Devin Nunes ?
Censorship is a danger. Putting our collective hands over the nations ears and calling that an effective action is delusional.
4
@EEE More damage than CNN? than Adam Schiff? Say it isn't so.
This article is riddled with false equivalences. Dr. Nielson would have us believe there in fact is no such thing as hate speech. Yes the FBI and other government entities have stretched the limits as to what constitutes hate speech. But perhaps the author's time would have been better spent clarifying where the line is as opposed to muddying the waters further. Comparing the likes of Malcom X with Alex Jones is a stretch on any scale. One of them was telling the truth.
1
Shocking that so many of those listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are black nationalist groups. What is the definition they use?
Free societies already impose limits on free speech. Defamation of character is illegal. So is uttering death threats. These are examples of widely-accepted restrictions on “free speech.” Thus, if the law can prohibit certain forms of speech, a call to voluntarily “censor” hate speech is a step in the right direction. People in a free society have the right to boycott an outlet which ignores such a request.
Hate speech favors the powerful side. As Professor Neilson notes, during the civil rights-era law enforcement agencies labeled some black activist movements as hate groups. Yet, these powerful agencies failed to regard white supremacist authorities and groups in the same light. When hate speech flourishes, powerful authorities are likely to label only one side as being hateful out of fear or bias. Hitler relied almost exclusively on hate speech to rise to prominence. Any controversial rhetoric from Hitler’s opponents got drowned because hate speech gravitates towards the center of power. In today’s political climate, that center of power is the American far right. Its hate speech easily drowns any of it from the left.
It is dangerous to assume that the stronger side will cease labeling the opposition as hateful merely because hate speech was not ‘censored.’ Certainly, it is unwise to legally ban hate speech. But threatening to boycott its outlets serves as a powerful form of protest by those targeted by hate speech.
@Nav Pradeepan You should CNN more. Your ox might not be getting as gored as you'd like to imagine.
@Nav Pradeepan
the dominant side? Black Panthers, the Alt-right and the KKK are not the dominant side but are the purveyors of hate speech.
It does not matter who is spewing the hate, white, black or purple, hate speech is not conducive to civilization.
@Nav Pradeepan
How do we identify what is hate speech.
All speech must be legal, outside of the obvious sort like yelling ''There's a Christian!'' in a darkened room full of, say, Californian Democatic Party officals and their assistants.
An angry person verbally attacking people in a public setting - or asking people to commit a violent act - is the closest we come to judging speech legitimately, and that's why we have cops.
The only reaction to speech you don't like is speech that you make yourself. One decent federal or state attorney general should be able to shut down ALL local speech rules on college campuses (campi?) that have been converted into progressive training camps and propaganda centres.
Similarly, the ''Resistance'' yodelings are quite licit speech as long as angry people don't appear to be inciting violent riots.
Speech you donl't like is the equal of t-shirts bearing messages or those daring pink hats Trump-hating women wore when the new President was beginning his term of office. Don't like it? Don't look.
5
In 2018 one sees people of all descriptions marrying and in many instances having children. Those alliances are exploiding one foundation of racial-based hatred by indicating that we are all simply the human race. How to defuse militant hatred on both sides when a city like Chicago is filled with people who "hate on" another race just because it's their subculture's norm? As for Black Lives Matter being airbrushed as a benign group, tell that to the FBI who has categorized it officially as a domestic terrorist organization. Because BLM advocates black people taking white people's houses from the by force, as an example.
2
Amazing how in the name of Free Speech, Mr. Nielson tries to whitewash several hate groups.
I'm all for Free Speech, but BDS and BLM are hate groups. Mr. Farrakhan is a peddler of vitriolic hate.
5
It’s always funny to read articles about censorship in The NY Times. Given their adherence to a strict anti-Trump, anti-conservative orthodoxy, they effectively self-sensor any dissenting views. And no, Ross Douthat and David Brooks don’t count as conservative voices.
7
The Southern Poverty Law Center's website says, "The SPLC defines a hate group as an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."
Based on Trump's statements and its record over the centuries, the American government fits this definition of a hate group.
It also has a long record of morally repugnant violence, including nuclear bombings of children. It has not renounced violence.
Have "Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify and most other major internet distributors" banned its content?
5
Anything that divides and separates human being is hate. There is no gray area. One can ever be "a little pregnant."
1
If you silence "hate speech" you will most certainly silence the resistance.....unless of course you decide that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
2
The article neglects one rather important consideration. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that hate speech, unless it is embodied in an explicit incitement to proximate violence, is protected by the First Amendment.
Of course it can still be limited on private communication channels, but what side of a free society does that put them on?
6
Here is a little piece of he puzzle ALL commenters so far are missing in this discussion. The Big Socials are in fact part of the Govt now. We all know, as was found out during the last administration, work hand in hand with Govt Intelligence agencies to perform surveillance on ALL Americans. They also work hand in hand with Big Media and secondarily Big Socials news feed algorithms to create and distribute propaganda to generate widespread public support for wars and other public policy initiatives. In the end, Big Socials are now simply a barely transparent extension of the Govt. Who is to say its not Deep State Actors within Intelligence who are not only working behind the Big Socials curtain to not just spy and manipulate, but also to direct which political voices will or will not be promoted via algorithm? This is a Conspiracy Theory in the last part, but the foundations leading to the theory are all based off of documented Conspiracy Fact.
2
@Mathius Cervesicus- What is a "Big Social""
A key issue is whether or not Google, Facebook, You Tube, etc. are publishers or not. If they are publishers, like the Times, they can be sued for libel.
If they are content platforms, then they cannot. A content platform is not responsible for the content on the platform, the author of the content is.
They can't, however, hide under the protection of a content platform while playing publisher by selectively banning content.
Attempting to suppress free speech online spreads the speech you're trying to suppress, it's called the "Streisand Effect". The effort of the Resistance to silence people like Alex Jones, and censor content, actually results in More Alex Jones and More Trump.
9
When I post a comment here at the NYT, there is a disclaimer telling me "Comments are moderated for civility".
That's the rule. Even though I pay for a subscription. I am still bound by the rules of this forum. So to certain extent, I am barred from demeaning others, using extreme language and expected to be basically factual in my assertions.
And I know that other people posting here are held to the same standards. I am not being singled out.
Spotify, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram and other social media are all public forums run by private companies. I don't see a problem with "comments moderated for civility", as long as uniform standards are applied to each comment.
61
@D. DeMarco
That has been the complaint of the conservatives. When Republican Congressional campaign ads are censored and taken down but no Democrat candidates ads, "uniform standards" are not being applied.
When conservative voices expressing support for a political position is censored, but not the progressive side of the same political position, "uniform standards" are not being applied.
The progressives running social media are not moderating for civility, but for political and ideological beliefs, censoring dissenting opinion, regardless of civility.
2
@D. DeMarco very much agreed, now the trick is to get more people to hold to that position. The problem (perhaps not here at the NYT?) is the standards aren't always uniformly applied if the opinion shared is an unpopular one. Instead, a view is deemed bad and therefore rejected, even if it's delivered in a completely cordial way. Rather than letting a viewpoint be shot down because of its poor merits, no discussion is even allowed.
I remember late last year the story of a girl fired from her job because on her Facebook page (i.e. not at work) she said it was ok to vote 'no' in her country's upcoming referendum on same-sex marriage. Her boss said that the girl merely *admitting* publicly to having that opinion was a form of hate speech, and therefore fired her.
Setting aside whether or not the girl had any legal recourse, it's the mentality of "your view is different, therefore it's hate speech" that's a problem.
1
@Kyle
I have not found that to be true.
I often see liberal points of view censored on many sites, mostly those who "lean right"
Absolutely! Whenever I see anyone want to limit or ban anything I look at how it could effect either side of the political spectrum. Free Speech is there for a reason and should not be limited.
2
Exactly the same problem applies to hate crimes. Once you start punishing people for their thoughts and words (i.e. in addition to their actions), there is a great deal of subjectivity as to what is "correct" thought and speech, and what is "hate" thought and speech. Just as black identity politics (and women, immigrants, etc) was turned around to create white identity politics in 2016's election, prohibitions on hate speech and hate crimes can and will be turned around to punish minorities as well, because there is no objective reason under law why they shouldn't be. When you start punishing people for ideas, you are going beyond the rule of law to the rule of men, because what constitutes hate will always end up being one judge's or jury's subjective opinion. That's why the first amendment protects all speech with very narrow exceptions. There is no halfway house where offensive speech can be banned without dangerous ramifications.
2
The real problem here : WHO gets to decide what constitutes and gets labelled as hate speech. This power can be very dangerous in the hands of a Big Brother Government determined to censor and to limit political opposition . That is why the Bill of Rights is vital to our individual freedoms as citizens ( another important distinction ) and worth defending and fighting for. ( wife )
4
Justice Holmes admonished us that shouting fire in a crowded theatre exemplifies a practical limit on free speech.
Although I shuddered at Mr. Nielson suggestion of a moral equivalence between the Million Man March which set to "convey to the world a vastly different picture of the Black male" and Black Lives Matter which shouted "What do we want? Dead Cops", Mr. Nielson's point is well taken: What comes around go. It's a Galatians 6:7 thing.
What we find appalling about Alex Jones on You Tube is the same thing we should find appalling about Maxine Waters on CNN. If we were shocked by Quinn Norton at the NY Times, we should be equally shocked by Sarah Jeong at the NY Times. None of these people have contributed to safer place for the children being gunned down in Chicago or the church goers gunned down in Charleston.
Even though we don't agree with each other on every single thing, most of us don't live on the fringe. It is high time that those of us in the majority middle condemn the violent rhetoric from both the radical left and right fringes.
6
Once can be part of the resistance without engaging in hate.
1
Once again, a claim that hating "the oppressor" is justified and not the same as the hatred of the oppressed.
Both sides get it horribly wrong when they define hatred in terms of "who" does it to whom. That is how "oppression" itself is usually defined now, and it is mistaken. If it is a matter of who, and not what, then banned can be all kinds of criticism, and not banned can be real hatreds.
Anyone remember Nazism? It was built upon hatred of a demographic group on the supposition that they were "privileged" (often true) and so "oppressors". It is a meaningless claim, and it does not help to substitute the "ruling class" as Stalinism and Maoism did. In Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the entire middle class was murdered under this same logic run riot.
In America, most racism is black hatred of whites. This is no surprise: every kind of social pathology more affects the more vulnerable and "oppressed" themselves. Many Black people routinely think and talk about "white people" as their presumptive oppressors. This blocks both strategic political unity on the liberal left, and substantive and useful social analysis.
Does anyone hear the word capitalism? It is oppressive to many, but is not a conspiracy of the rich. Change needs not dulling hatred but creativity.
Liberal politics after 1968 focused on groups, and identity, pride, speech policing. Oppression equates with being offended in a managerial moralism befitting corporate quiescence.
1
There is no absolute free speech in any country. That notion is incredibly naive. Free speech has alway been modified to protect society. There are numerous examples of change to laws after a few choose to ignore society's generally agreed, democratic trust in abiding by certain ethics and morals. In the digital age there is more danger than ever before; people are far more gullible and more easily swayed, often being closeted in a room with only a computer for company. Alex Jones is a ranting, raging lunatic spewing nothing but bile. If he'd been doing this on street corners 50 years ago he'd have been tossed into a straightjacket and never seen again; mostly for his own safety. But back then, Americans were proud to be American, and wouldn't be seen dead wearing an "I'd Rather Be a Russian Than a Democrat" t-shirt.
1
At this point in the internet media info-wars, I would be more than happy to endorse a 5 year moratorium on all hate speech, including marginal, questionable and remotely hateful.
Create a review board tasked with reviewing all tweets, FB posts and such, to include comments to such posts and content. Ban all expressed sentiments that would not be uttered by the late Mr. Rogers.
A 5 year moratorium would be a lot like declaring Marshall Law. Marshall Law removes nearly all constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for a limited time until an emergency situation no exists. Similarly, Mr. Rogers Law would be in effect for only 5 years, until civil discourse became the norm. The Mr. Rogers Civil Speech Moratorium would include The President for obvious reasons.
Think about it: no more posts disparaging any particular group, race or ethnicity. No more videos selectively focused on supporting stereotypes, i.e. women driving, male bar behavior. No more troll comments about nig nogs, deep state or even repression of the freedom to post hate speech.
All media will become just grumpy cats, stupid dogs and silly grandchildren. What a wonderful world it will be. Unless someone complains about cat, dog and grandchildren hate posts.
1
"it’s not exactly clear where Spotify is drawing the line." ... It is VERY clear where Spotify draws the line. If your views are liberal, you have a platform. If they are not liberal you have no platform.
4
So what is your recommendation here. It cannot be do nothing. Yes, hate speech is a form of expression but the private platforms are not places of free speech. No one is stopping Alex Jones from ranting and raving a bunch of nonsense. What they are doing is stopping him from using privately owned platforms to do so. You are free to use hate speech but if you do so in my home, you will be escorted out and fast. That would be to anyone white or black or Jew, etc. Hate speech has no real place in my world no matter who espouses it. It should never be encouraged.
2
This is all code for imposing communist like controls over people's voices who you do not agree with. This, in essence, is the core of socialism and it can only exists within a communist context.
Free speech, freedom of the press, and liberty are the things that make America great. It is a great shame that a news service like the NY TIMES is reduced to become a tool to destroy the foundation that our Constitution stands for.
5
Why is this question opaque? It was transparent until recently. Hate speech is not saying hateful things. Hate speech is speech designed to incite people to violence against other people. In essence it’s the “fire in a crowded theater” exception. You can’t cry “fire” and you can’t hand a crowd a rope and say “lynch him.” If people get hurt, we hold you responsible. It’s the equivalent of felony homicide. If you kill a guy in a bank robbery and I’m driving the getaway car, under our law I’m as guilty of homicide as you are. These are time-tested and reasonable standards for a society to protect itself. BUT — that means keeping the definition of hate speech clear. Speech designed to incite violence. Like saying all gay and black people should be dead. Like saying grieving parents are actors. When you say that, you know that some people will then threaten them because that’s what you’re telling them to do. “All Democrats are horrible people” is awful but depending on the audience it’s not an incitement to violence. What IS inciting people to violence is, “Beat them up and I’ll pay your legal bills.” Under normal circumstances that would result in criminal charges. Our society is so far gone at this point with mass love for a demagogue that the reasonable result was out of the question. If possible let’s not make a habit of that. Let’s forbid and punish speech that’s an incitement to violence. Defining that may be difficult but it’s our only choice.
3
It's not the hateful speaking that we should worry about.
It's the notion that there could possibly be so many hateful listeners.
Anger management is more necessary than ever in these difficult, hate filled times. Hate speech that promotes violence should be censored as should those outrageous lies of Alex Jones that have led to violence against grieving parents. This is sick, hateful speech and should be censored. Lies should be called out and stopped. These weird conspiracy theories cause weird people to do violence. Peaceful protests work. Violence and hate speech lead to more violence and hate and divide people.
2
@getGar Wow. Seems you are really missing the point of the article.
@getGar Stay in France. You clearly do not understand our First Amendment.
Hate speech is something the kids came up with when the reality of the real world caught up with them. They will not be allowed to prevail. Hopefully the idea of procreation will be too icky for them.
5
Companies can do whatever they want...it's The American Way!
2
@Mogwai Unless they're a bakery or photographer. Then they are forced to comply with demands.
2
@Mogwai So you support the NFL firing players who kneel during the national Anthem?
@Lzylitnin
Not forced to comply with demands. Required to follow the law they agreed to when signing the license to open the business. If your religion demands you discriminate and you open a business to the general public you have chosen to violate your faith you were not forced to. BTW serving someone at a business no matter how ignorantly you invest yourself emotionally in one specific product you sell to the point you reserve that product for certain people only, it is not a violation of your faith to require that you provide the service to all comers.
If you want to discriminate do what the discriminatory have always done create a private club with paid membership to get around the law for serving the general public.
Alex Jones lies, defames, spreads blatant conspiracy theories and gives rise to vicious attacks on innocent people, many or most of whom are the victims of unspeakable crimes. To call his speech "hate speech," only demonstrates the lack of nuance in our legal language for describing what Jones does.
I agree with the writer about the misrepresentation of Black Lives Matter's calls for attention to institutionalized violence against Americans of color and for the false equation of Black Lives Matter with white supremacist groups.
However, the writer seems woefully ignorant of history and reality on the ground if he buys into the idea that Israel "systematically oppresses" Palestinians. He also underplays the evil antisemitism of Louis Farrakhan and of the leaders of the women's march who support him. No doubt most of the women who participated in that march knew nothing of the organizer's own antisemitism or ties to Farrakhan.
4
Well put. My reaction exactly. Purposely ignoring the antisemitism in the Middle East elevates a discriminatory policy to the level of character it does not deserve. The white nationalists in Charlottesville carrying svastikas and machine guns outside an unguarded synagogue were not just marching against blacks.
@Janet Many Many so called conspiracy theories have been proven to be true.
1
@Janet From your description, it sounds as if Jones behaves no differently from the editorial board of this newspaper.
Our Constitution gives us the right to hate if we so choose.
2
A lot of folks lately, this author included, have been making this slippery slope argument that removing Alex Jones’ videos may have negative repercussions for free speech down the road. Why do they ignore that the government is forbidden from limiting free speech while YouTube et al can do whatever they want as private entities?
Also, limiting hate speech by removing content that violates the terms and conditions of a website, does not keep a person from disseminating hateful content elsewhere. In fact, Jones’ “news” app is one of the most popular of its kind.
Art is expression, so when private citizens stand up for what is right by limiting hate speech on YouTube or at the clinic where I work or at the grocery store or wherever else, that will actually empower people to create art not limit creativity.
Even though vehemently oppose their views, I am not personally opposed to the idea of the the KKK having a public march—big or small—to express their views. But they should expect push back when they peddle racist, bogus claims using hateful speech, just as Jones experiencing.
@Tony C Push back is one thing. Censorship another.
1
I've been looking for citations from anyone who can definitively tie J Edgar Hoover to the term "hate group". It's a clever sleight-of-hand that attempts to slough the 'hate speech' creation onto conservatives. Nice try.
1
Black nationalists in the 1970s calling for violence against whites WERE engaging in hate speech, and in today's world should be treated the same as any other hate speech.
Your argument that it is somehow obvious that we should have allowed their hate speech, and therefore we should allow Alex Jones', is odd in the extreme.
1
Oh come on, the rules are really very simple. If it's left-wing or liberal, it's ok. If it's conservative or right-wing, it's hate and must be banned. So good people have nothing to fear from this censorship, only the evil!
2
There is one thing more dangerous that "hate speech." It is "GroupThink."
8
"Freedom of speech is not freedom for the fellow you love. It's freedom for the fellow you hate the most. And a democracy can't exist without free speech and the right to assemble. And that's what Americans tend to forget. And they're born into a culture where they take all of their freedoms for granted."
— Larry Flynt
3
I've got a much simpler solution: Don't censor any of them. Don't want to hear it? Don't listen.
57
I'd bet the farm that there has never been a case where laws or policies prohibiting, censoring or criminalizing speech or opinion have eliminated the underlying sentiments. To the contrary they have exacerbated and driven the underlying fanaticism underground to fester out of sight leaving the censors in the naive belief that they have eliminated it.
The better course is to accept the reality that hate is there, always will be, and attack it in broad daylight of public opinion.
Else, as the author points out and history teaches, the commendable rationales used to define "hate speech" will be used by those in power to advance their agenda by suppressing the expression of any social and artistic ideas, and protests, that threaten it.
Many in the comments and certainly the article advocate for unfettered speech.
And our Constitutional free speech rights have evolved through time to allow almost all "topics" and "forms" of expression to enter into the category of "free speech".
I solidly fall in the camp that you do not have a "right to free speech" unless you have the right to twist some group's knickers!
I've lived through some of the major battles we had to fight to get free expression - a right I find impossible to deny and still claim to be "the land of the free and home of the brave".
To me to deny it in any form by the Government directly or indirectly is a violation of our Constitutional rights.
Even if that "speech" makes me want to gut wrenching vomit if I am intellectually honest and play fair I have to protect the right of the "speaker".
I do ALMOST unequivocally and MOSTLY pretty broadly.
But lines do have to be drawn because we ALSO have rights to live a legal life free from life alerting targeted harassment and abuse, with ability to conduct public business free from "group" discrimination.
We also have a right - at least in my mind - to expect and demand that the commercial outlets of free speech ensure nothing is violating the competing rights above.
Also that the content does not use blatant falsehoods, slander/libel, and wild hyperbole to purposely undermine an informed democratic possess or incite illegal discrimination/activities/harassment, etc..
Fair lines I think!
When I was a kid I was taught, and understood that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me”. Now children are taught that all, and any speech that makes them uncomfortable, or hurts their feelings must be silenced and made illegal. 1984
2
But at some point haters trigger violence. At some point you stop the person yelling “fire” in a movie theater, just to panic people into hurting themselves.
I understand from where Nielson is coming: Folks with self-serving and nefarious intentions can very easily use hate speech laws to suppress the voices of the powerless.
On the other hand, Alex Jones and his ilk really do need to have someone put a sock in their pie holes before someone gets killed.
I think we gotta go back to using judgment, folks. People who strategically use the language of oppressors against the oppressors themselves in order to highlight its meanness and absurdity aren't really engaging in hate speech. Folks who use "hate speech" speech satirically aren't engaging in hate speech. College professors who teach hate speech classes who utter real-life examples of the topic of the course aren't engaging in hate speech (I'm not sure why I have to state this , but . . .).
Use your melons and think before you accuse someone of using hates speech, and think even longer and harder before you use language that could be classified as such.
In the end, however, I give you the words of those trenchant political theorists, Lennon & McCartney:
"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait . . ."
1
There is a difference between "limiting free speech" and limiting access to media. People do not have an unfettered right to be published on any platform they choose just because they have something they want to say. No one would suggest that Mr. Jones has the right to demand space in the NY Times for example. Imagine if he demanded the right to publish an article claiming that Hillary Clinton was behind a child molestation ring headquartered in a pizza parlor. That's the sort of thing puts out on social media all the time. Clearly no one is suggesting that he has the right to publish on any newspaper he wants.
Many are suggesting he has some sort of inalienable right to publish on social media but this does not make any sense to me. Even if one assumes that social media is totally different from the traditional news media, one must admit that it is based on the concept of self-organizing communities. These virtual communities are very much analogous to local neighborhoods. If Jones were to scream his thoughts into the night, his neighbors would call the police and ask the police to shut this annoying Jones guy up. The police would do so claiming he was disturbing the peace. Arguing that Jones has a right to publish on a social media platform is like saying he has the right to scream into an otherwise peaceful night and his neighbors have no recourse. That's plain silly.
While you are certainly correct that censorship of speech is a dangerous threat to free people, I must say I am disappointed that your examples are all reliably progressive organizations easy for readers to support. We have a constitutional right to free speech and routinely defend the most abhorrent speech because what citizens choose to say is far less dangerous than granting anyone the power to regulate speech.
We've spent the past year in near hysterics because a Russian troll farm bought a few million in ads and successfully manipulated citizens on both sides of the political aisle.
Meanwhile, some are applauding while computer bots, algorithms, and human censors at Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter at al, actively manipulate what billions see and read every single day.
Who has more power to manipulate political opinion? A Russian troll with a four million dollar budget, Alex Jones, or the fifty billion dollar social media giant with a huge team of behavioral scientists and computer engineers?
The other day Twitter removed most Republican members of the House of Representatives from their autocomplete function. Anyone attempting to find out what their representative had to say had to look up the entire name in order to see their Twitter feed.
Censorship of speech labeled as hate sounds great until it happens to someone you support. But by the time it happens, it's near impossible to put that genie back in the bottle.
Be careful what you wish for.
7
@Dave C
"Hate Speech" is now a big business in the USA... in truth, defining any speech as 'hate speech' is in itself a violation of the principle of Free Speech as protected (not granted) by our Constitution.
As abhorrent as some speech can be, the proper remedy is education and the market place, not government imposed 'bans'!
The tragedy of the Adolf Hitler era, was not what he said, but the fact that the majority of the German people believed his nonsense and empowered his philosophy.
1
This piece refers to New York’s anti-BDS law as quelling free speech.
That law prohibits public funding of organizations that support Israeli boycotts.
As a resident of New York State, I don’t want my tax dollars used to promote organizations that advocate boycotts of Israel.
It has nothing to do with free speech. The law doesn’t prevent boycotts. It prevents NY taxpayers from paying for it.
4
"... While Mr. Jones’s rhetoric is certainly repugnant, mounting pressure from the political left to censor hateful speech may have unintended consequences, ..."
When some jerk like Alex or Rush become a boat anchor (bad for business) to any corporation, advertisers or tech companies (Google, Apple, Facebook) will dump said jerks. These guys are a stain on these entities, why on earth would any entity continue to allow these jerks to continue to damage their brand. What does the 'political left' have to do with any thing?
1
@oldBassGuy : Your ' jerk ' can be another man's ' hero.' Arrogance does not improve the flow of ideas ; it merely shuts down the conversation. The intolerance and lack of respect for people who do not agree with oneself today is a BIG part of the problem we are experiencing about free speech. The politicians ( and the many groups ) who have inflamed their constituencies - on BOTH sides- should be held accountable. Political campaigning - by BOTH sides - has become the equivalent of what we once labelled as unacceptable as yelling ' fire ' in a crowded theater. ( wife )
Saddened by the banning, book burning and other forms of silly things we did so many times before. Sadly we relive history never remembered.
2
This is a well done consideration of the subject "hate speech" but the actions taken against Alex Jones are being mislabeled. He is guilty of much worse than simple hate speech, much of his content rises to the level of slander and libel. Stating that Sandyhook never happened, at least not the way the news media reported it is slander against the media and his contention that the people we see are actors is decidedly libel. When a major piece of his rhetoric rises to the level of criminal then I seriously question if he hasn't given up his rights to free speech and be heard. The internet has proven to be a brave new world of easy information and it becomes necessary to protect against it being used for nefarious purposes, to spread untruth. In my opinion much of the right has done exactly that, no matter how much they scream about "fake news," much of the content of Fox News and the rest of the right wing media does not stand up to CAREFUL scrutiny for truth.
Double standards are indefensible. Any attempts to do so result only in embarrassment.
1
It is so clever that this author pretends not to be able to objectively identify "hate speech." Perhaps he is confused by its name, as the people who hate hatred can, in a twisted way, be described as haters themselves.
It is racial and sexual bigotry that our society has rightly chosen to reject. Hatred of bigotry is ACCEPTED, and whatever words are spoken to attack this are righteous words.
Hate speech is NOT righteous. Bigotry is NOT acceptable. Stop pretending that bigotry is just another "opinion." It is not.
The author makes valid points, not least that 'hate speech' very often lies in the eyes and ears of the interpreter.
I would like to add, however, that there is a fifth dimension to all that has been discussed about hate speech: Very often it is a fierce reaction to provocations couched in 'acceptable' language. A prime example is your President, who skirts the border of racism in every statement he makes on the subject, encouraging race crimes by suggestion.
Conversely, in the past many blacks targeted whites with verbal and physical violence, because they felt they had no other means and no other solution. Relentless black pressure, both legal and illegal, led the civil rights movement to victory.
Lastly, let us acknowledge that the Bible, Talmud and Koran are rife with hate speech. Should they should be banned as well?
3
Tje 1st Amendment is completely irrelevant to this matter. Private speech has for centuries been protected by far older than the US Constitution.
People who are injured by speech have always been permitted to recover damages for defamation, slander, libel, and misappropriation of image and likeness. The Sandy Hook parents are suing for damages ... not because Alex Jones is hateful and evil.
It isn't good for society when the scope of a personal liberty protected by the Constitution is continually mistaken for the limits placed on government. Journalism is making itself a party to this confusion.
Freedom of speech- isn’t is it OK for whites to spout conspiracy theories that incite violence while black athletes who kneel during the national anthem are labels unpatriotic? Why is it OK for Trump and cohorts to spout racial rhetoric and demean elected officials yet wrong for his targets to speak out? Our flexible scale of values.
1
The left loves to silence those with whom it disagrees in order to obtain power and the monetary rewards that go along with it. Fascism, socialism, communism and all other authoritarian philosophies can’t survive when the people have freedom of speech and weapons to defend themselves. Authoritarianism is evil and immoral and freedom of speech is an important tool in protecting ourselves from its grasp.
“Hate speech” is a ridiculous formulation dreamed up by the left to shut people up.
2
Speaking of hate...
Some in the broadcast media -- otherwise very cogent people -- have called for boycotting coverage of Trumpty's Romper Room rant sessions, especially his spoiled-brat fits at his royal rallies. I disagree with this strategy.
Rather, keep the cameras rolling. Because it's keeping us decent folks intensely motivated to take our democracy back from this Despot, beginning in November.
Hate? The only time it enters our speech is as a wholly suitable description of our feelings about Donald Trump -- this Blight who, thankfully, is only a blip in our national record.
1
For all of you who seem to have forgotten, here is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Pretty impressive statement.
@skeptic that’s why it’s the First Amendment.
The short answer (to the headline) is: no.
The confusion around the issue of the meaning of "free speech" as embodied in the constitution and in case law might be one of our biggest failings in teaching our children how to think through conflicting values.
Free speech is not entitlement to the platform of one's dreams. It means the government cannot clap you in prison or kill you because you used the f word, the n word, the c word, or any of the other charming ways we "express" our opinions. The Resistance--if indeed there is a genuine resistance filled with people not, for the most part, posturing for hipster stardom but actually dedicated to principle--will not be harmed in the least by the rejection of hate speech or screeds of any political stripe. As others have pointed out (often, in fact, so why are we still so confused about this?): the rejection of ideas, either speech or actions, is another form of free speech. Society rejects child porn, so it's illegal to possess or distribute it. Some people like it; indeed, not so long ago, some people tried to make a political case for it. American society rejected that case, and now it's banned. Too bad. What the writer needs to remember is that the process of discernment here is just that, a process. It never ends. Society keeps changing, or refining, what it thinks.
So long as it does think. To me, that's the more serious question.
5
"If we ban hate speech from private media somebody will censor non-hate speech through government action.
"Look, here are state governments doing it already."
Gee, thanks Professor Neilson. I could never have seen it that way without your help.
@David Lloyd-Jones : There is an ' interesting ' failure to acknowledge the difference between ' discernment ' and ' discrimination. ' To expect people to live without a moral compass seems impractical , dysfunctional and dangerous. All judgements are not equal. Tolerance is vital but so is the ability and the responsibility to make judgements. ( wife )
Is it hate or fear or both? They're two peas in a pod like control and censorship.
It always comes back to power. The struggle to get it and keep it. So here we go again... oh boy! Can you imagine how many new ideas or works of art or humanity saving discoveries are not born because this change of power illness has been so emotionally and mentally consuming?
Our civil society is being tested by all this panic on display and it's way past time for the adults to step up and return the sanity that binds us to its proper place. It will happen as it always does, when the let it go lesson sinks in.
Don't know how we did it but it appears we've turned political discourse into a fantasy spectator sport. What a tragic waste of all that creative time.
Come on neighbors, the kids are watching, let's show them the meaning of our motto, e pluribus unum. I still believe, do you?
1
Where does the censoring of certain information end and who is drawing the line? The government and their big government followers in the public cry to silence their 'haters' but why?
The handful of people at the top decide for us?
This looks more like a certain political group deleting another out that they don't like. Its not for the good of the social community and it is not helping their cause at all.
In fact the exact opposite.
In the case of Infowars the left have only justified much of what he had to say through this censorship.
Speech is not only for the popular voices in public but the unpopular as well. It keeps Liberty healthy.
2
Several points to clarify about this topic:
1) Many commentators say it is the Left who decides what is hate speech and the Left who controls the media. This is wrong. The Right controls many of the largest media outlets - think Fox, Wall St Journal, Sinclair etc.
2) The issue the Left has with hate speech is that it comes almost exclusively from the Right. BLM is the only Left group I can think of that practices hate speech, while neo-Nazis, alt-Right and Trump supporters are all Right wing.
3) The Right demonstrate yet again their hypocrisy - they claim to be originalists re the Constitution yet they would love to quash free speech that denounces their behavior.
4) Hate speech is not libel, which is what Alex Jones engages in.
So by allowing Jones to post on Twitter etc, social media companies are complicit in his crimes.
1
No one likes a nitpicker. Not least when your- I mean, you’re the one under scrutiny. But who among us has never indulged in being someone else’s critic? Where and how do we draw the line between ‘hate speech’ and freedom of expression, as this article raises?
Because it’s never that black-and white. Conflict arises even in the best of times, and when both sides already have a bloody heritage of opposition, even oppression, already-sensitive issues seem poised to detonate. Naturally, this isn’t just about the blacks and whites in America, war and injustice having pervaded pretty much all peoples throughout history. My own nation has a plentitude of these issues, being a (much-touted) multiracial, multireligous society. We are far too conservative to let this opposition ruin our harmony. But I do sometimes wonder at what cost this tremulous peace comes, what rises to the surface when ‘hate speech’, and the concerns they raise, whether legitimate or not, are stifled.
I am in no way condoning ethnocentric trampling of someone else‘s race, skin colour or culture. But a teacher of mine once expressed the idea that ‘the day we know we’re truly diverse is when they stop shoving it in our face.’ Pride in identity is one thing, and laws to prevent abuse certainly welcome, but does it suggest when they become necessary? What are we so afraid of? Because haters gotta hate, but what awaits us when the accumulation of ‘hate’ we can smother erupts may be a violence we cannot put out.
1
All of the examples the author cited to support her argument seem completely indefensible to me. When it comes to spouting racist nonsense and violence inciting rhetoric it doesn’t matter if it’s coming from the right or left. It’s equally wrong either way.
Liberty and freedom is certainly a messy business isn't it? We all know what the first amendment protects. It protects the Mormon missionaries and the 7th day Adventists, Republicans & Democrats along with any other party campaigner, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and Bible and Encyclopedia salespersons. All of them, and more, are able to go from door to door or stand on public access grounds and preach, educate, and offer their goods without fear because the First Amendment.
There are two types of sites from which all others rest upon. One is private and the other public. Very much like buildings. Everyone has access to public areas, grounds, and buildings. Then there are private buildings to which only certain people have access to.
But even private property has rules to protect the public. Walls can only be built so high, hedges are often monitored for height, vegetation too close to the house is even monitored in some areas. In some neighborhoods, the exterior construction must match a common norm. On the interior is another thing. I can paint, renovate, an do nearly anything I want as long as I am not depriving another human of their rights. In public properties, my actions are very much more restricted. Imagine if I attempted to enter any public building with a suitcase of spray paints.
This is also the same manner of Freedom of Speech. There are limitations on what is endorsed and allowed by the general public, by the owners, and by users.
Let’s not over-analyze this. If speech hurts, say so. There's no such thing as free speech. Twitter is a proven vehicle for the unremitting assault on the opinions of Americans who have not been armed by their education against the grossest lying propaganda, whether from Putin or Trump. I don't use twitter--I can get enough garbage on TV. I walked out of Mass on occasion, feeling powerless against the imposition of someone else’s “free speech”: once was during the reading of the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae, a diatribe against birth control. Another was during a political harangue by a fat, comfortable priest, anti-union son of a shop keeper, a priest who never understood stuff about loving thy neighbor. Neither priest would have offered me his microphone to debate him. In America, I have watched with fascinated horror as American colleges and media have been misbranded, successfully, as “liberal.” Such branding is available only to people with a lot of money to spend on right-wing indoctrination.
2
The point being missed is that Jones’s hate speech is NOT being silenced. Jones is still free to speak; the Congress has passed no laws prohibiting his speech. He can get a printing press and print his speech. He is free to construct his own megaphone and stand on the street corner. He can buy a radio station and broadcast; maybe even sign a deal with the EIB network and broadcast from there.
What has been removed is an amplifier for his speech that is owned by someone else who does not want to be part of amplifying Jones’s hate.
58
@Kam Dog -- exactly. And this distinction gets lost every time university students ask for a hatemonger to be disinvited from speaking on campus and they, and/or the university, are pilloried for "censorship." The students are not asking for the hatemonger to be jailed or fined. They are merely asking for the university to exercise better judgment and discretion about who it grants a platform and a microphone, and by implication cloaks them in the mantle of rational academic discourse. They are merely asking the university to respect and honor all members of its community rather than giving a mike to those who want to silence, exile, impoverish, criminalize, marginalize, bully, intimidate, and maybe even kill some of the members of that community.
So is free speech limited if one can be prosecuted for making a threat against a US president or are there limitations placed on what a person can say?
2
Hate speech is just speech that someone doesnt like. There are already laws against incitements to violence and libel. Without Freedom of Speech we are no longer a free society. Allowing speech that you agree with while banning speech you disagree with is tyranny. We are the only country in the world that allows its citizens to speak their mind. People in England have been arrested for criticizing people of Facebook and Twitter. A man in Canada was jailed for singing 'Kung-Fu Fighting' in a karaoke bar (I wish I was joking). Unless we want this madness here we need to honor our Constitution. Because putting restrictions on Freedom of Speech is a very slippery slope. What if your criticisms are one day labeled "hate speech?" Its a very easy step to outlawing criticism of government if we outlaw criticism of individuals.
6
The article “If We Silence Hate Speech. Will We Silence Resistance?” by Erik Neilson revolves around the hot topic of whether or not we should limit “hate” speech in American. The term “hate” is a dangerous word used to describe unpopular views on specific things, particularly minority groups. In the article the author explains how today young Americans, particularly Americans of color believe that hate speech should be regulated by congress on college campuses and some believe legal restrictions should be placed on hate speech. Although, the beginning the article seems to support the restriction of hate speech. The author provides a counter argument debating that if hate speech was limited, we would struggle to defend the opionated poets, musicians, filmmakers and other artists whose art contains a majority of “hate” speech. For example, recently Spotify announced that they will not promote artists who engage and use hate speech in their music. Immediatley after the announcement, recording labels like Kendrick Lamar’s expressed their concern with this new policy and it is now under discussion. I personally agree with the counterpart of the article because even though “hate” speech can be extremely violent and hurtful it is a better method than physical violence. If the government limits the people’s right to “hate” speech, than it may result in the use of physical violence in protests to increase. After fighting wars over our freedom of speech why silence Americans?
The leftists continue to twist themselves into knots. The framers of the Constitution thought free speech was so important that it became part of the First Amendment. There is no such thing as "hate speech", as this is a made-up phrase used to restrict our constitutional rights.
5
I don't know what "Hate Speech" is. But I know what hate is. And I know you can verbalize hate. I don't know what "trigger" means. But I know what "fighting words" are. I'm not sure what a "safe space" is. But I know what it's like to be among friends and allies who don't deny your humanity, don't lie to or about you, don't cheat you, won't shoot you for holding a bag of skittles and wearing a hoodie. Some folks like gated communities. Others prefer a safe space.
I do know that anger and rage isn't the same as hate. I know that fear and race are political instruments to divide and conquer. I know that haters need hate to feel better about themselves. Hate-speakers are fire-bugs, accomplished arsonists. Haters are dry tinder.
Advertisers who pay millions to run ads on TV can't lie. If any of their ads are deceptive or dishonest, a ton of FTC and FCC penalties get triggered and the market will punish their brand.
But haters get to roll out ten big lies a day without worry, validated by the medium they use to reach their audiences. So Alex Jones on FaceBook is validated or vouched for by FaceBook making his lies more credible. It's a tacit endorsement. The only issue is why FaceBook took so long.
Very unclear where the author is trying to go. From a distance it looks like blaming the victim. He seems to be saying "don't outlaw spitting in peoples' faces because then you won't be allowed to spit back in their faces."
Maybe we should just spit less.
9
@Yuri Asian Maybe you should understand what category errors are, and the fact that if you take someone's review of a show you've never heard, you don't know what you are talking about.
What Farrakhan and, say, David Duke share is a racist cosmology that has rendered each politically marginal. The author seems to support the rights of the former by imagining--as opposed to arguing--that the latter is a civic force to any meaningful degree. This line of thinking is followed by the author of the LA TIMES article to which he links; that author claims that free speech allows one to shout slurs directly at minorities. Thankfully, per hate crime law, this isn't the case.
Alex Jones is another marginal quack on his way to obsolescence. A short-cut to said dead-end would involve the recognition of social media platforms as publishing organs beholden to laws prohibiting slander; certain journalistic or scholastic standards must follow.
If Spotify decides they don't want certain types of music represented on their network that is their business choice. It is a company not a government. Same with the others who banned AJ. Do you think Mark Zuckerberg should have to tolerate a FaceBook group called Kill MZ? There are usually limits within any company. Don't confuse private businesses with federal government and rights.
There you go again with "people of color." I think we know hate when we see it. And an awful lot of it these days seems to be coming from these people of color we are all supposed to glorify and feel sorry for. Nonsense. This is a time in American history when all people must finally be accountable for their actions, and when bad behavior among people, regardless of their color, is punished and reviled.
2
If people are going to “finally” be held accountable, there are plenty of them in the queue before we get anywhere near people of color. The aggrieved, injured tone of “supposed to glorify and feel sorry for” is misplaced. At best.
This is your second Op-Ed in a week that attacked the Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of hate groups. The first was by a Christian conservative shocked that his group was included just for saying nasty things about gays.
I actually agree with the SPLC criticisms of both some black nationalist groups and some Christian conservative groups. They SHOULD be called out for tolerating promotion of hate in their communications. By hate I do not merely mean disrespectful, but language so dehumanizing it could be viewed as incitement to violence. But despite this, I also agree they should not be silenced.
Malcolm X may be a good example of the dilemma. He clearly was voicing concerns that deserved to be heard, but some of the ways he expressed them did deserve condemnation.
Hate speech and incitement to violence should always be condemned, but we need to find ways that allow other messages of the speaker to still be heard.
2
>
The paradox of freedom.
"Freedom is so much the essence of man that even it's opponents actualize it even while combatting its reality"
Marx
1
Hate speech is never going away. The issue is not about "government" passing laws restricting speech - it is about social private platforms being the source of "news" for over 60% of the public. The platforms are not regulated by the FCC like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox news. The private platforms took the action, not our FBI.Don't forget there are limits to free speech that have been set by our Supreme Court's decisions. The private platforms had the legal right to remove "speech" by their own guidelines. What we need to do is have discussions concerning what is a social platform and should it be a source of news, or regulated by the FCC. Alex Jones has his own website (a private platform by the way) and the use of Facebook, etc. to spread his views should be taken into consideration. We are now fully into the digital age and are still learning how it can change our lives and views. Mixing of hate speech and government control of said speech is misleading. I'm a child of the early 50's and the changes and use of language have moved generations in those years. I'm more concerned about confronting racism with truth than restrictions to free speech. Lee Atwater used language to send the same message of racism. MAGA is the same use - it is not coincidence that we have a racist as president after the first election of an African-American to our highest office. An American Dilemma by Gunnar Myrdal rings true to this day as we approach the 75th anniversary of its publication...
4
@Michael Grove
I totally agree with your assessment! The ambiguous status of social media platforms presents both a cultural and a legal problem, and it seems as if the comments are leading us to your crystallization of the issues.
I agree in particular with this remark: "What we need to do is have discussions concerning what is a social platform and should it be a source of news, or regulated by the FCC." Well said!
Agreed. This is one of the things the left is not understanding about liberalism and free speech. We don't react to speech we dislike by censoring it. We have the stronger arguments. We have love. They have hate. We have tolerance and acceptance. They do not. Let them speak their hate so we know where it is. Let them speak their hate and we will counter with reason and love. Censorship is a reaction born of fear. We do not need to fear white supremacy, or other failed ideologies. We need to speak back, powerfully, because most reasonable people choose love over hate.
1
We do not live in the past but the present, and there are new rules for communication. Hate speech was once the purview of campus meetings, or discussed at book clubs. News reports took time to digest before a decision was made about content. People talked face to face, not through tweets. There was no subversion and intellectual interest was a conscious choice. Mass media is subversive. It effects the subconscious mind in order to sway opinion. Look at how much anger many of these right wing websites incite! That is why Apple, FB, YouTube and others have every right to restrict content from organizations which promote extreme views. They understand their power. That is the new now.
2
Mr. Nielson: In the title, I take it that by "resistance" you mean resistance against injustice. Yet hate incitement IS injustice, and it can have very injurious consequences on people. Please turn your title around and ask what would happen if there were no controls on broadcasting content in this era of internet. You will quickly get my point if you imagine free broadcasting for pedophiles to advocate child molestation. Verbally speaking, without standards, corporations such as Facebook and Youtube may as well give anyone a gun and let them supply the bullets and pull the trigger. Yes, there are some very dangerous efforts by major hate inciters to blame resisters of hate incitement. BDS and BlackLivesMatter are good examples. Humanity won't ever get away from the tendency of evil doers to project their deeds onto their victims. But this doesn't excuse people from making moral distinctions. Libel laws do identify legally prohibited speech as 1) false, and 2) injurious. These laws are absolutely necessary. But law can never relieve people of the duty of making moral distinctions that go beyond law. When a person is being verbally or physically abused, it is one thing to call the police, but that can't substitute for someone nearby who will intervene and defend the victim. The managers of media outlets are in a position to do that, and their business ought to be making distinctions in the language that they broadcast.
Here's my position: socmed are private entities that are not the State. 1A says congress shall make no law...it doesn't say anything about private interests. Government cannot control speech.
Public University Campuses are, however, government entities. They have to permit 1A. Private colleges do not.
This article pretty much hits on what Rule of Ideology would look like. Want to ban "Hate Speech"? Take that to its appointed end, and you'll find that the human condition cannot, regardless of race, be cured....and that we all would belong in jail if the left's metrics were adhered to.
1
I absolutely agree that the concept of hate speech is dangerous, but when someone calls me a 'devil', why is that not hatred? Today's most-commented article is about Sarah Jeong and her much-tweeted hatred of whites. Just how were Farrakhan and Malcolm X different, except that they explicitly espoused violence? Hatred is hatred. Own it.
5
So, our choice is a sea of Alex Jones', or government repression? Either way we lose. And this is how our democracy will die. It will be destroyed by people using it's all encompassing tolerance, to promote intolerance, and the protections of it's own laws, in order to subvert them.
Right now, as I write this, a relatively small group of people are in the process of actively trying to destroy our 242 year old experiment in the exploration and expansion of basic human equality. Our checks and balances have been rendered useless. Our legal system has been co-opted. Our elections have being rigged. And, to top it off, we have a full-fledged maniac in the White House with a massive entourage of mindless zombies ready to do anything he says.
If we were a little more civilized we wouldn't have to worry about people like Alex Jones because no one would listen to them in the first place. Now, were faced with our own political extinction as a result of the very tolerance that allowed his intolerance to flourish.
The only hope our democracy has left is Robert Mueller and/or a sweep in November. If both fail we are doomed - literally and figuratively.
2
No one likes a nitpicker, Not least when your- I mean, you’re the one under scrutiny. But who among us has never indulged in being someone else’s critic? Where and how do we draw the line between ‘hate speech’ and freedom of expression, as this article raises?
Because it’s never that black-and white. Conflict arises even in the best of times, and when both sides already have a bloody heritage of opposition, even oppression, already-sensitive issues seem poised to detonate. Naturally, this isn’t just about the blacks and whites in America, war and injustice having pervaded pretty much all peoples throughout history. My own nation has a plentitude of these issues, being a (much-touted) multiracial, multireligous society. We are far too conservative to let this opposition ruin our harmony. But I do sometimes wonder at what cost this tremulous peace comes, what rises to the surface when ‘hate speech’, and the concerns they raise, whether legitimate or not, are stifled.
I am in no way condoning ethnocentric trampling of someone else‘s race, skin colour or culture. But a teacher of mine once expressed the idea that ‘the day we know we’re truly diverse is when they stop shoving it in our face.’ Pride in identity is one thing, and laws to prevent abuse certainly welcome, but does it suggest when they become necessary? What are we so afraid of? Because haters gotta hate, but what awaits us when the accumulation of ‘hate’ we can smother erupts may be a violence we cannot put out.
Isn't easier to just let people say whatever they want (apart from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)? When did the thought police arrive to determine intent or meaning of speech? Where is the ACLU?
I like the "Blue Lives Matter" one. To protect those the "accidentally" on purpose kill other people from being hated? That's a hard one to fathom
Hate like love has a way of spreading its self in many creative ways. The only way to diminish either is to use one or the other against the other.
Anyway, well written Erik. So true.
Facebook and others make money in closing their eyes to what their platforms broadcast.
They should be held legally accountable for their contents and manage their products accordingly.
1
Yes. On the one hand I could not help but cheer the efforts to marginalize Alex Jones. On the other hand, the actions made me a bit queasy. It has long been said about the famously hard to define 'pornography,' that "I know it when I see it." To some extent the same is true with hate speech. What is some people's hate speech is others' plainly spoken "truth."
We could claim a general societal opinion for what is truly hate speech, but that is a trap. Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true or right or just. Consider Nazi Germany where many citizens bought the notion of "Aryan" superiority hook, line, and sinker or the pre-Civil War south where Christians were convinced that slavery was God's will for dark-skinned peoples.
I don't have a clear answer, but believe that we must proceed with extreme caution when shutting down one person's or group's speech because we find it repugnant. The slippery slope is always waiting.
2
Hate speech -- speech that threatens, encourages or incites to violence by promoting hatred -- should not be tolerated, whether it comes from racists and fascists, or from people resisting injustice.
This is not silencing resistance. It is silencing an unacceptable form of resistance.
4
"Take, as one example, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, a Palestinian-led initiative that endorses a series of nonviolent measures to end Israel’s systematic oppression of the Palestinians."
One can argue about systematic "oppression of Palestinians" as rockets fall on Israel but BDS also denies the legitimacy of the State of Israel and essentially calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. If Mr. Mr. Nielson thinks that this movement is "resistance" then he should not be surprised that people resist back in non-violent ways through the legislatures and courts, which have decided that BDS falls within the purview of a hate movement.
Intersectionality combines BDS with other non-related movements. There will be attendant damage in the response.
For my purposes Prof. Nielson, hate away. Far be it from me to limit the right of haters to hate. Bring it all out. I agree. But I will use my right to resist and I prefer to push back and resist the haters using the legal tools that are available.
12
I really don't care what the arguments are for the other side. No one needs to hear the vicious lies of Alex Jones. Like every other right in the Constitution, the right of free speech is not unlimited. The argument being made here is the same one that the pro gun community is making against establishing any limits at all on gun ownership. Can't we temper these principles with a bit of common sense? No, you aren't free to concoct a fake story about a horrible tragedy and disseminate it in a manner which brings emotional harm and the threat of physical harm to those who were directly involved in the tragedy. No! That is not and should not be protected speech. And you have a problem with this because it means that you aren't free to do the same thing? Well, guess what? You're right, you aren't free to do the same thing. And if you feel that somehow deprives you of some sort of expression you think you are entitled to, too bad.
6
@David, I am no Alex Jones fan, but would be happy to apply your post against you. I do not like what you said and how you said it, so you should be silenced. If you don’tlike It, “too bad”. You probably have principles I don’t share, so you should have none of the rights I enjoy. That would certainly make my world pure, and me more righteous.
Again, I am not an Alex Jones fan. I can block or ignore his posts, I am not obligated to listen or watch his programs, anymore than I am obligated to read your posts.
Alex may have given as much thought in his statements as you do in yours. It does not mean it is coherent.
Reply if you wish. I have already dismissed your viewpoint.
And no, I do not believe a word I said. You are entitled to your view and to be heard should someone choose to listen.
2
@David: There is no first Amendment right to tell lies intended to defame persons, nor is there a first Amendment right to engage in verbal harassment. Alex Jones can lawfully be held to account for slander and harassment when his lies target the parents of children gunned down in a school massacre. I would think that social media platforms are also within their rights to deny him airtime, not because they judge his comments to be hateful but because he intentionally lies in order to do injury to others. Genuinely harmful speech is not protected by the first Amendment. The author of the opinion piece raises serious concerns about the use of the "hate speech" label to shut down expression we find personally or politically offensive. The distinction between speech that offends and speech that injures is often subtle, but it remains important nonetheless. Alex Jones deserves censure and the loss of his social media bullhorn not because we find him hateful and offensive, but because he uses speech as a weapon to inflict real injury, telling defamatory lies and verbally harassing his victims.
1
@Stephen N
Exactly what I said in my reply to Neil. Ahd I said the same thing in my initial comment too.
"...mounting pressure from the political left to censor hateful speech may have unintended consequences..." Darn right. The Left is not going to like the new rules when those rules are applied to their pet causes.
The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making any laws abridging the freedom of speech, so the Left needs to go at this honestly - campaign to repeal the First Amendment, I dare you. You will be in the political wilderness for the remainder of time.
2
@David Ricardo
Just give me one, just one, "pet cause."
Just one. Just name one.
Thank you. For liberals so fast to dump on this bandwagon, there's very little thought to where this will land when taken to its most logical conclusion. It's like when the Democrats/Harry Reid went changed the threshold of votes for the Supreme Court...look who's laughing now. Also, here writing is an example of a present liberal veering toward being a former liberal because of things like this. And I am not alone. I would never vote Trump but if the left continues on this path, I will be a moderate Republican in 5 years.
3
Taking action against one patently libelous and slanderous individual like Alex Jones, will not sink our ship. He will lose against those parents suing him for the particularly contemptuous behavior against Sandy Hook families. It should not be that hard to find legitimate criminal charges against him. If Jones was using the very same methods to argue for a flat earth, then he wouldn't be actually hurting anyone just by spewing that ludicrous view. But if he organized people to harass scientists and their families, then it would be a fair comparison. As it is, Jones is running an exquisitely insane and pernicious campaign against Sandy Hook families, one that is difficult to defend against. And it is traumatizing! The point has been made, too, that a private social media platform can have relevant policies and remedies that the government might not have. It only adds to the insanity to fret about 1st Amendment rights vis-a-vis Jones' deliberately malicious behavior. And, it does not matter if he's really just a man with a galloping mental illness/personality disorder.
5
Info Wars' rhetoric is more than hate speech. It's incitement to violence. There's a difference, according to the Supreme Court.
5
@katherinekovach BLM is also incitement to violence, yet their speech is not banned.
"There’s no question that black nationalists often argue for racial separation or that many have engaged in bigotry. But it’s false equivalence to label black nationalists and white supremacists alike as hate groups." --> Agreed. I also agree silencing hate speech could generate backlash--and consequences. But never forget any backlash to silencing Alex Jones-types will necessarily be predicated on false equivalence. This false equivalence should be fought against, not taken as a reason to limit what its critics ought to say or do.
3
We would not have this issue if Hillary had won. Players would be standing for the National Anthem and hate speech would go unnoticed as it did during the Obama years. It is all about politics, nothing more. It goes away once the Democrats are back in power.
2
@Jimmy
Did you forget to hit the sarc button?
@Jimmy You scare me Jimmy, but I support your right to state ur views
I agree with your basic premise. I disagree that black nationalism is any more justified than white nationalism. We need to stop classifying and justifying (or condemning) the actions of people because of the color of their skin. What we should be supporting or opposing are the merits of the substance and content of their beliefs and conduct.
40
@John Q. Public Amen. I can still say 'Amen', right?
1
Opinions, you know, are like that thing that everyone has. There is no shortage of speech - hate or otherwise. I'm not sure it accomplishes much. Money talks. That's the only voice anyone pays attention to in the good ol' US of A.
If I walk into a restaurant and start yelling awful things at people around me, do we really expect that I will be allowed to stay? Having me removed from the premises is not censorship. Perhaps rather than expecting these platforms to react to hate speech, the rest of us should just quit them. Why give them hearing at all?
3
Hate Speech Laws are nothing but the "establishment" regardless of what it is at the time attempting to make illegal the opinions of those it seeks to suppress. Hate Speech is by definition a capricious method to define some group's opinion as illegal. Deliberate acts of violence are clearly wrong. It is not right but is not and should not be illegal to limit opinions we don't like. Now to actually hurt people is and should be illegal.
Now yelling attack or kill or trying to raise a mob against someone is clearly wrong. Attempting to define expression of distaste or opinions we don't like as illegal is a violation of free speech.
2
I am tired of conservatives complaining about limits on hate speech. As I recall, this is the third recent op-ed piece in the Times, and the second in two days, that takes this position. This article even acknowledges that the concept has already been used against people of color and left groups. However, somehow, now that the concept is being used against conservatives, it is not OK. How disingenuous. We should limit any speech which will incite people to violence, and Alex Jones' program clearly does that.
3
@NeilG1217 To make sure everyone is on the same page, we need to agree on what would incite people to violence.
@Tom Maybe, maybe not. It's a hard line to draw. There may be ambiguous cases, in which case I would be cautious about imposing limits on speech. However, the fact that there may be hard cases should not prevent us from acting in clear cases.
This is an incredibly important article for me, because it terrifies me that powerful words like 'racism' and 'hate speech' are being thrown around in the public discourse without anyone ever bothering to establish one constant, working definition of either phrase. Major corporations like Apple and Spotify, and even the federal government are making decisions to silence certain provocative individuals, citing 'preventing the spread of hate speech' or 'protecting the disenfranchised from hate speech' as their motives, but never bothering to define what they believe 'hate speech' is. In addition to the fear this puts in me, it also makes me rather angry, because I believe the unwillingness to define these terms comes from laziness. Don't believe me? Next time you're talking to someone about hate speech, ask them to define 'hate speech' for the sake of your conversation. Then, just to play devil's advocate, try to poke holes in their definition. In my experience, people won't want to keep talking to you. It's just so much easier to throw a vauge, yet seriously negative, label at something that perturbs or offends you, instead of trying to combat that rhetoric with intelligent debate. In an age when being accused of 'hate speech' or 'racism' is like being accused of yelling 'bomb' in an airport in the sense that your right to freedom of speech is suspended, we need to be clear on what constitutes 'hate speech' and be very careful before we accuse somebody of it.
35
@David Gambee This is all part of a UN agenda. Every Western country has adopted the hate speech laws that fall under the UN Charter. Europe has done it outright whereas the U.S. because of the Constitution can't. So they are just getting around it by censoring through the Tech companies and social media. And firing people unless of course, they are Marxist spewing hate.
@David Gambee You've hit on a major point - the definition of words is being distorted; but, I don't agree that it's due to laziness. It is intentional, the better to tar more and more people.
For example, without meaning to open this can of words, I've asked dozens of people online to cite examples of Trump saying something racist. I've had plenty of examples provided, but none are racist. Most concern nationalities or religions. Others lack the critical component of superiority/inferiority.
To a person, none of those people would accept or admit that their examples did not fit the definition of racism. Why, I would ask, are you not content to insult him as a nationalist or an anti-Muslim? They typically insulted me at that point and disappeared.
The answer, of course, is that those insults don't stigmatize. So, they lie instead. But, it's not laziness.
People who understand the law know that there is "true speech" and there is "false speech". It is the "false speech" that lands people like Jones in trouble.
Hate speech is false speech that unlawfully targets individuals and groups for profit and politics.
Due to the entertainment industry's exploitation of false speech and the media's 24/7 coverage of false speakers, we have become desensitized to it, however, decades ago false speech would be considered shocking to civilized society with the perpetrators of false speech being roundly shunned.
I believe we must keep our sense of outrage and disgust and reject and shun false speech it at every turn.
1
I assume the author thinks that hate speech is coming from the Right, and "If we will silence Right Speech, would we silence the Right?"
What you will silence is free speech. Eventually you will silence the Right, but that won't make you happy because then you would realize that "yes, we silenced them, but we did not change their mind." Now you would need to send all dissenters for reeducation and to set their minds right. So you see, banning speech is not the answer, but it is the most attractive short-sighted answer.
The problem with term "hate speech" is that it is being used to silence political speech or any kind of differing view. If you don't like someone's political views just call it hate speech, and it is enough to brand them a hater. The tech companies that are overzealous to stop hate speech right now just ban people with no due process what-so-ever. They believe that they occupy a high moral ground decide what it hate and what isn't. Even our political system gives everybody due process if they are accused of being hateful. Our political system has far more respect for free speech and our Constitution than our privately held high-tech monopolies. Our monopolies are getting away with things our government will never get away with. They are leading the ultimate assault on free speech. They are banning people based on how many people are offended by someones views. It's a mob rule.
2
@bgbs: "The tech companies that are overzealous to stop hate speech right now just ban people with no due process what-so-ever."
The tech companies are COMPANIES (not government entities) which can establish whatever rules they want. And if they decide that Alex Jones is a troublemaker whom they don't want in their establishment stirring things up, then they can boot him--there is no "due process." Jones can go start up his own social media site--and people are free to go listen. (Or NOT.)
1
The hate is not new. The arguments on both sides are not new. What has changed is the ability for people to make their words or their events known to millions of people with the click of a mouse. The internet is a game changer that we still don’t know how to control. I don’t agree with all of the writer’s statements but he certainly laid bare a very complex issues. Good read.
25
We would progress markedly towards a healthier society by promoting free speech without needless categories like “hate speech”. As long as speech stops short of inciting violence, a free society should welcome dissent. Censorship merely creates smoldering resentment. Better to vent emotions and express controversial ideas; to do otherwise breeds anger that can lead to all manner of unintended consequences.
2
The underlying argument is "Oh, this is hard so let's not even try."
It's the same argument used by those who don't believe we should do anything to combat climate change, racism, sexism, inequality, unequal access to education and a whole host of other problems. As long as people can be convinced that it is "too hard," then they'll just give up.
1
Germany has banned hate speech with clear and enforceable rules. We still have free speech. Most arguments here mix apples with oranges, and once again have me concerned about basic understanding of respect for human rights and safety in the US. Hate breeds hate. Hate speech incites, and includes lies for that purpose. How difficult is that? What, in heaven’s name, is to protect about hate aimed at certain persons and populations?
It is very possible to make a distinction. Work at it. Teach children what hate is. And punish those who practice it.
43
@Jacalyn Carley-Thank you. Your points make perfect logic and Germany's principled and common sense approach should be studied here and emulated. I fear the U.S. is on a slippery slope with Trump in front unleashing endless lies, making reckless threats, and spouting comments that are both directly and indirectly qualify as "hate speech".
@Jacalyn Carley, the error in your argument is that "hate speech" laws are preemptive measures against threats posed to people due to such speech. But the general understanding of preemptive law is that it is justified only if the threat posed is more immediate, such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Speech that asserts the inferiority of one race vis-a-vis another race, or asserts negative stereotyping of the members of a certain race, gender, political party, etc., that may incite physical violence in the distant future against them by some idiot--analogical to the butterfly effect--is not a justification for legal prohibition of such speech. If it were, referring you to the "butterfly effect," a justification could be made for banning ALL speech. Who knows what negative consequences for people lurk down the road a thousand years from now because of it? The Czar's government censor banned "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith as dangerous to the public peace of Russia, which indeed it was. So, what? Marx's writings were responsible for creating the most horrific national slaughter houses in history, over 100 million innocents exterminated in the name of Equality, of creating the New Socialist Man. According to your argument we definitely should censor "Das Kapital."
1
@Jacalyn Carley If only it were that simplistic. You may not get this, and we're not given enough characters to better explain, but...hate will never go away. It will never lessen. Because, hate only exists in our minds, and it will always exist in our minds.
Absent roses, we would still imagine something smells like one, even if we called it something else. Humans have hated all kinds of things over the years - redheads, left-handed people, albinos, Irish, Chinese, Polish, Muslims, Catholics, fat people, ugly people, and on an on. Even today, many groups face exponentially more discrimination than, say, people of color. Would you rather be fat and ugly or black? Would you rather be stupid or be a woman? Would you rather be shy and unambitious or gay? Disabled or an illegal immigrant?
Here's the deal: discrimination/hatred is a good thing. If you are married, you discriminated against others to choose the one you wed. If you're a business owner, hopefully you discriminated against incompetent candidates when hiring. Americans discriminated against non-capitalist countries to become great. We discriminated against Japanese after Dec 7, 1941.
Yes, obvious examples. My point is it never ends. There can be no love without hate, no good without bad, no pretty without ugly. Hating haters makes you a hater, as it should.
I absolutely agree with not making it easy for Alex Jones to spew his creepy, hate-filled speech far and wide. However, it really DOES unnerve me that in the very same week, so many multi-national tech giants decided to ban him from their platforms -- ALL AT ONCE.
I hate to think what that meeting looked like - a group of people sitting around in an elegant meeting room in a multi-national corporation (or on a teleconference line) deciding what was right and what was wrong, all by themselves.
We live in a democracy. We should have appropriate public institutions taking these sorts of actions, not for-profit enterprises that get to decide who gets to use what freedoms.
2
The following obviously may not legally apply to private companies.
I don't think that speech should be banned because it's hateful. Some sorts of incitement to violence should be banned, though there are lots of hard-to-judge examples out there, too.
I know little about Alex Jones but I don't think he should be banned for, eg, claiming that Sandy Hook was a hoax or that some groups of people are awful for some reason.
By the way, *some* of what Farrakhan and Malcolm X said *was* hate speech. Institutionalized racism exists but it doesn't mean that the oppressed side's behavior can't possibly be hateful. But, again, I'm not suggesting that their speech, hateful or otherwise, be banned.
1
@PaulSFO: I do not believe in any way that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and I think the whole Alex Jones thing is stupid.
HOWEVER….for many, many years, I have read and watched countless equally bogus "theories" about the JFK assassination and the moon landings and 9/11.
I've seen real theatrical movies claiming a conspiracy over the JFK assassination and quite a few LIBERALS believe this whole heartedly.
These are widely available and no end of YouTube videos on various "conspiracies".
Funny, nobody thought these were hate speech or had to banned UNTIL NOW.
Also: I read almost daily garbage from liberals about how "there is a pee tape of Trump getting or giving golden showers in Russia" -- or other nuttery -- no proof of any kind --- just rumor and innuendo -- and yet this is absolutely accepted as OK.
But somehow Alex Jones is the problem? come on! this "problem" is at least 50 years old, probably older. Americans LOVE conspiracy theories!
3
If the government was censoring Alex Jones, I'd be defending his right to speak. But if YouTube wants to ban his videos, that is no more objectionable than their long time ban on pornography, i.e., their platform, their rules. Have these companies opened up a Pandora's box of how to determine what is and isn't acceptable content? Absolutely, but it's on them no one else.
32
@Tom Just to confirm, if the NFL cuts every player that protests, you wouldn't say a thing, right? (Of course, being a Canuck, you may not care). Hopefully, you say yes, but you have to admit, there's been a whole lot of people claim the opposite and use freedom as speech to justify the players' obnoxious acts.
I don't care about Jones, but I care about free speech, equal protection, and hypocrisy.
It is reason to be wary that it is during the Trump administration we are seeing this new crack down on hate speech. You can be certain the administration is calculating the ways they can use this to their advantage, and there must be many, because otherwise they’d be waving the constitution around, yelling about the first amendment.
2
Perhaps we should just allow full freedom of expression and not try to judge 'hate' which is elastic, often arbitrary and can be turned around to silence legitimate grievances.
Perhaps we should let people's words stand for themselves. Treat people and their expressions as individuals and stop giving privileges and punishments by group identity.
We need to get rid of discrimination not redirect it onto another group.
9
While we are at it, can we get rid of hate crime statutes. Such legislation is grounded in the same flawed reasoning. It is the act that is criminal and should be punished - not the attitude.
18
In general, I believe limits to free speech are bad. For example, I think it is wrong to shout down speakers whose ideas we find repugnant. A comment about students who shouted down Ann Coulter (whom I personally find repulsive, but whose right to free speech I support under no uncertain terms) at a school rally - "What are you afraid of - her ideas?" sums up my view. If you do not like someone's ideas, take them on with facts, not with prohibition.
However, publishing the name and address of parents whose child was killed in a school massacre and telling your followers to go after them goes beyond "free speech", as it violates the parents' right to privacy and their right to security - this needs to be prosecuted, and we all need to be protected from it. Spreading known lies and saying it is legal because it is merely an "opinion" is wrong and should be subject to prosecution as libel. Speech that endangers others, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or calling on others to harm people, cannot be tolerated in a democratic society.
28
@Sally
We have elected officials that write and pass the laws that we live by. If you do not like the laws, vote in new representation. Better yet, run for office.
As for the lies, people need to be seeking the truth and not just believing the statement at face value. We need to follow due process and keep in mind that all parties involved have rights. Part of due process is socially and or criminally punishing confirmed liars who ruin peoples' lives.
This article concentrates on the dangers of using "hate speech" clauses instead of, say, focusing on libel and slander to clear the air of Alex Jones-style pollution. More importantly, it also serves as a reminder of the "principle" of free speech that so many of us are willing to sacrifice for short-term political gain.
In many comments (and in other op-ed pieces), free speech is seen as opening the door to abusive practices that contradict the spirit of the law. While the argument that free speech is being subverted is undoubtedly true, should the right to express your opinion be contingent upon which opinion you hold? What happens after the "principle" behind this liberty has been eviscerated, even if the "right opinion" prevails?
Indeed, politics is only a fair-weather friend to rights, and, as Dr Nielson noted of the "hate speech" strategy, "It can devolve into the politics of choosing sides, and that is usually bad news for people who lack political clout to begin with." Let's not shoot ourselves - and our descendants - in the foot.
This leaves the question of social networks. If the media platforms on which we express ourselves want to claim Fourth Estate advantages, they are then equally subject to First Amendment laws and guidelines. In what way is Twitter or FB a fully private organization?
6
@Andrew
Yes social media is a private organization in the sense that all users voluntarily access the platform and agree to all of the terms in the user agreement. Non-users are not compelled, coerced, or threatened by the company or others to join and participate. Because Facebook is a publicly traded company, they do have to answer to shareholders who may or may not care what Jane and John Q Public think on Main St.
@skramsv
I appreciate your comment, which is reasonable and even similar to arguments in favor of free speech. Nevertheless, I think the status of large social media is a bit more complex than as presented. I was trying to say that FB and Twitter take advantage of (and are victims of) their ambiguous position as private companies / purveyors of content. Gary Taustine said it much better than I did in the post below: "Second, social media platforms have become more than just a place to post cat videos, many people get their news through feeds on these platforms, and those feeds are being filtered and curated by the proprietors’ algorithms. If they are permitted to omit opinions it’s no different than your newspaper delivery service cutting out the articles they don’t like before you can read them. You may be ok with that when it comes to Alex Jones, but sooner or later the algorithm is gonna get ya."
@skramsv - Facebook and Twitter etc. are public utilities whether technicially given that status.
Can the phone company ban you for your conversations?
Why should Facebook?
It's not just about speech to me but about the actions they lead to. Now yes, you can argue if/ how strong the link might be but besides just loudly ranting this views, Alex Jones' words incite threats of violence to be done to the families involved. There has to be some limit on what people can say when their words can (or does) result in damage - not just physical but financial, reputational, etc. to others.
5
@ms - There you go again. The charge of inciting violence and the "damage" it has caused once again leveled without any evidence. The Big Lie Theory at work.
Can the left survive without lying? Their effort against freedom of speech is evidence that they cannot.
1
You might love it today, but what if tomorrow brings a change in who controls the mighty sword of censorship? As Evelyn Beatrice Hall (Voltaire's biographer) said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
18
@Capt Al: So shut up today in case you're an even bigger victim tomorrow?
1
Those who seek to defeat Mr. Nielson’s bulletproof argument by pointing out the difference between public speech and private organization miss the point entirely.
First, private organizations may have the right to censor users, but unless that censorship is applied equally across the board, based on a standard set of rules, the practice is discriminatory.
Second, social media platforms have become more than just a place to post cat videos, many people get their news through feeds on these platforms, and those feeds are being filtered and curated by the proprietors’ algorithms. If they are permitted to omit opinions it’s no different than your newspaper delivery service cutting out the articles they don’t like before you can read them. You may be ok with that when it comes to Alex Jones, but sooner or later the algorithm is gonna get ya.
And finally, while The First Amendment is still intact from a legal standpoint, its spirit is no longer a guiding principle in our society. Laws are made by people, and people are getting far too comfortable, of late, with the notion that words and opinions they find offensive can simply be banished. If they're willing to accept censorship as customers, they’ll be willing to accept it as constituents. The precedents being set by private industry, if left unchecked, will become policy, and policy left unchallenged will eventually become law.
19
@Gary Taustine
Very well stated. Too many colleges (Yale are you listening) seem to believe that free speech is not something that binds them, as they are private organizations. They also sanction the heckler's veto.
Your last paragraph identifies the issue exactly.
7
@Gary Taustine
And you don't think FOX "cuts out articles they don't like?" On any given day that Trump says something absolutely horrid or sucks up to a tyrant like Putin do you think FOX will broadcast that? Never in a million years. So private platforms on all sides have the ability and willingness to determine what the public will and will not see and hear.
@Gary Taustine Not sure what country you live in, but newspapers censor the news everyday by choosing what to print, depending not only on their specific points of view, but also the fact that they are capitalist organizations financially and hence politically. So do universities in their choice of faculty and who gets tenure, and even in the choice of courses and what can be taught in the classroom.
And what exactly is wrong with political discrimination, i.e., not giving Neo-Nazis, the KKK and other fascists a platform? The government discriminates all the time in how they treat protestors and strikers, protecting fascists with big police lines, while herding liberals and leftists into fenced pens and prosecuting those who aren’t so subservient under anti-terrorism laws.
Americans don't trust their institutions to make rational decisions based on their interests, although, in fact, our institutions do a very good job. The problem is always "who will decide?". In societies based on a social an cultural consensus, this is less of a problem. In the debate over "hate speech" we should speak of "Volksverhetzung" (inciting people to hate i.e. violence against particular groups) based on lies and propaganda. Why should we allow our public airways, for example, to be open to groups whose goal is to incite violence against others? This could apply to groups on the left or right, of course. But this is not the political correctness and speech censorship you see on college campuses, but rather it is like crying "fire" in a movie theatre. Words and symbols matter and free speech, which is a bedrock of our democracy, is not an absolute, as laws against liable and defamation of character show.
@MGP: There you go again with the college campuses shiny object. College campuses are controlled by forces that monetize every possible aspect of the "college experience," and degrade not only the concept of education but even reduce the graduation process to a grotesque and vacuous certification ritual.
1
Hate speech is a relatively easy target to destroy by argument for more speech, in defense of the First Amendment.
Hate crime is not. Hate crimes are a category that has been clearly defined and too often unreported.
Hate speech, narrowly defined, would include anti-Semitism, racism, gender debasement, and anti-religious bias.
It is possible to maintain a narrow definition under the Constitutional exception of "crying Fire! in a crowded theatre."
Some discipline should be imposed on hate speech narrowly defined.
1
@HLR
I am not sure where people get this false notion that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre. The 1st amendment permits it, laws in nearly every place in the US permits it, including Michigan where this saying came from in 1913.
From a social and moral standpoint one should not shout fire, gunman, or other words to invite panic when there is no threat. There ARE laws on the books to deal with people who do cause a needless panic where people and property are hurt.
2
No worries. As long as the left owns the big social media firms, hate speech will always be defined as speech coming from the right. Not even necessarily the far right.
The left nowadays controls the language. This is George Orwell's 1984, but this time for real. To the left, his novel was simply a manual for governance...
42
@Jerry Right we control everything.....I have to go now the nightly Trump rally is on TV.
@Jerry
So that was your conclusion from reading 1984, that the liberals had taken over?
They must have school kids read a different version of it over there in Russia.
1
@Jerry Why do you think the left owns the big social media firms. Could you provide a link to that info?
A new "language" will evolve. It will be ambiguous , but the ambiguity will have meaning.
1
A reticence to act is a well known liberal malady. The fear of brushing against the rights of others has never been a problem for the right, which allows them to win most battles. An easy example was stealing the Supreme Court seat. Stopping even the discussion of Obama’s choice is how the right deals with speech. Once the right wins the levers of power, they, of course, move to limit any speech with which they don’t agree. Democracy can end when one side refuses to understand how the game is played.
9
@DO5
"Elections have consequences" per President Obama during the healthcare "debate".
1
@DO5 This is an insane and ignorant comment. Most of the censorship right now is coming from the left. 90% of the political violence in America is coming from the left. What I really despise is the unwillingness for most progressives to speak factually and based on evidence. This shows that the left is in some kind of fantasy world. I tend to appreciate progressive values in some areas, such as the protection of the environment. But sticking your liberal head in the sand will never solve anything. Exageratting and holding to false inflammatory views of the right will not solve anything.
1
@DO5 You do realize you just described leftists to a T, right?
The concept of free speech comes in two forms.
The first form is the prohibition on government abridging free speech, or abridging the use of resources to publish that speech (freedom of the press). Public schools, as government entities are subject to the first amendment. This included content neutral rules on speech and publishing views.
The second form, is for a civil society norm where non government organizations and individuals do not block those with opposing views from expressing those views. As non government entities they have the right not to provide a forum for opposing views.
4
Freedom to hate the people who hate me.
The ultimate circle.
9
Oh, sure, anything can be abused. Some people think that even the First Amendment can be abused. But some countries seem to have banned hate speech successfully, by defining it narrowly. Let's not knock this until we try it.
5
@polymath No one ‘tries’ banning hate speech. It is the first step into the abyss where there is no turning back. It sickens me knowing so many Americans support banning speech. Who do these people seek to ‘narrowly define’ what is or is not hate speech? Will it be applied equally amongst individuals of all races/religions/politics? How long will prison sentences be?
3
"Freedom of Speech" limits the government from censoring people from speaking. Private organizations may limit the speech of employees or contractors by hiring decisions, firing, or canceling a contract. You have a "right" to speak your opinion in public. You don't have a right to give a speech at Carnegie Hall unless you contract with them and they may ask to see your speech in advance. If you change the speech they can legally pull the plug. Public - private, very different.
7
@Tom W. You are right and you are wrong. I believe firmly in free speech on your own time and own dime. Hijacking an event should be shut down, eg taking a knee at NFL games or Academy award acceptance speeches.
But free speech should be supported by private organizations, particularly when attacked. No doubt speakers at Harvard slide left as a general rule, but an attack on a planned speaker should be strongly resisted.
1
@wnhoke Sounds like you’re all for free speech until it’s actually exercised, such as kneeling at NFL games, the national anthem being a pubicly mandated requirement - and often in a publicly owned and/or paid for facility, broadcast on publicly mandated airwaves, with publicly paid police on duty.
@Roger Even if the government sponsored and produced a game, the players are employees in uniform and on the clock, so have no right to ad-hoc protest. Players can protest all they want, just not at a game. Suppose a teacher or player decided to wear a MAGA cap?
By the way the anthem is not required except by the NFL and teams.
This may not be relevant.
I was a freshman at a SUNY [NYS public college] college in fall 1960.
A campus group invited a real live member, Herbert Aptheker, of the Communist Party to speak on campus.
The local community was outraged.
How dare a Communist be allowed to speak at a place supported by taxpayer money.
The college president backed the campus group.
Aptheker spoke.
The world did not end.
During the question and answer session at the end of Aptheker's talk, American Legionaires in the audience did not distinguish themselves with their questions. Aptheker made fools of them.
One member of the faculty who was known to be a socialist then in his remarks and question totally refuted the hypothesis that Aptheker was promulgating.
Although what Aptheker was saying was wrong I wouldn't call it "hate" speech.
But I think Aptheker's hypothesis was more thoroughly discredited and refuted by the socialist professor's comments than if Aptheker had been prevented from speaking.
13
@david
Really? Try inviting a GOP member to speak at a college campus today, any college campus, and see what happens.
2
Other societies manage this. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law". These are - in the main - gentler societies than ours, where free discourse is every bit as well protected as ours is. Perhaps we should step away from our exceptionalism - the only nation that need guns more than health care - and learn from others for a change?
12
@Tansu Otunbayeva USA is exceptional because of its contains large populations of people from different races, religions and historical experience. ‘Gentler societies’ are not nearly as racially diverse as the USA, this diversity of experience and expression hardly even exists as those populations have similar identity, history and experience. What countries do you believe could teach a nation of immigrants from every corner of the world lessons? Also, no country comes close to USA with respect to free of speech and assembly. Please cite a nation that protects free speech comparable to the USA.
14
Another thing it'd do: it'd give whoever resists the speech in question nothing to resist. Imagine a debate with two sides. Some debate rule says that Side A cannot speak, but Side B can. Side B showed up to the debate so they could, well, debate. While Side B is guaranteed to win the debate by default, why did B even bother to show up? What victory is it if it is handed to one on a plate?
One reason why the re-implementation of Capitalism in the old USSR went so badly after the wall fell was no one in the USSR had been taught exactly what Capitalism, or I should say, regulated Capitalism, was. They just read about how bad it was. The supposedly wondrous virtues of Communism however were extolled despite that system's limited ability to produce what people in general wanted or needed. So Russians knew they wanted Communism to end and wanted this thing called Capitalism to rise in its place because like westerners, they wanted things like toothbrushes and toothpaste in great enough supply so that they could brush their teeth all month rather than just two weeks of every month. By not knowing what regulated Capitalism actually looked like systemically, their implementation of it looks a lot more like oligarchic Cronyism, which is a lot less efficient than regulated market Capitalism.
Eliminating entire categories of ideas, be they wrong or right, limits the intellectual tools people have. This tends to produce sub-optimal results. America's no different.
17
Matt,
Side tangent...
You might also mention that communism as espoused by Marx wasn't what was implemented. Soviets only claimed to follow Marxist thought, and in fact practiced policies very different from Marx’s idea of a communist state.
When Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Communist Party and took complete control. Establishing himself as the new totalitarian dictator of the Soviet Union, completely disregarding Marxist thought for his own greed and desire for power.
Even though we associate Marxism with the Soviet Union and communism, it is important to recognize that mostly Marxism was not practiced during the USSR’s 69 year reign. Dictators ruled the country rather than the proletarian collective, and workers, especially during Stalin’s rule. They were often put down rather than elevated. It is important to realize the difference between the ideal of communism and communism as practiced in countries such as the Soviet Union, NK 'n Cuba.
Note also Marx predicted that the development of Capitalism Uber Alles, would lead inexorably to the concentration of capital, an immense accumulation of wealth on the one hand, and an equal accumulation of poverty, misery and unbearable toil at the other end of the social spectrum. America's end game?
1
@Matt A Lithuanian cousin told me this: "With capitalism, if you don't work you don't get anything. However, with communism if you work and work, you don't get anything."
1
As a person of faith, I'm very concerned that policing hate speech could very well infringe on other First Amendment Rights. For example, my church still supports a traditional view of marriage (man+woman). Are they engaged in hate speech? If at work I say I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman--which I do--should I be fired for my hateful conduct?
With the 1st Amendment it really is a slippery slope, and I'm glad the author recognizes that.
41
@Colin It's not hate speech to say what you believe. It is when you denigrate or advocate discrimination against a class of people whose marriage (or other lawful action) you want to prevent. Your beliefs are valid for you, but not for everyone else, and you have no right to abridge the rights of others by force.
Remember too that your coworkers have the first amendment right to disagree with your beliefs, and it does not constitute persecution.
1
I agree with you that your beliefs are your own, and your right to believe what you want to cannot be infringed.
It's when you tell others what they should believe, and you do so based on your beliefs that I think you are infringing on the faith of those others.
And if they believe that marriage is a private matter, not addressed in the Constitution, are you willing to accept that others have the same right to believe as they like?
1
Everyone has a right to freedom of speech. Every one else has a right not to listen and not to financially underwrite the speech of others. They government has the obligation not to interfere with the proper exercise of either one of those rights.
The author is correct when he says the the words "hate speech" may be used, by some, including government, to demonize the proper exercise of a First Amendment right. The solution is to use all proper means to prevent the Government from prosecuting or harassing those who simply wish to lawfully express their opinion.
16
@HJB something tells me you didn’t take this stance with the NFL barring players from kneeling.
Hate speech is whatever the press says it is. That's the working definition today. Tomorrow their definition may be different.
47
@mannyv Exactly. This is why Roasanne Barr can be immediately fired for her racist tweet (singular) and Sarah Jeong’s many racist tweets are brushed off with an excuse flimsier than a wet strand of spaghetti. Not only is Sarah not fired, she’s awarded with a job at the, I’m assuming, once-great NYT. And not a whisper from about the flagrant double standard.
2
This op-ed piece is misconstruing the issue. The issue is not about free speed at all but rather free enterprise.
Nobody is preventing Alex Jones from exercising his right to free speech. He still has that. The idea that such speech must be supported (ie paid for through bandwidth and technology development costs) by private companies is absurd.
Mr. Jones is free to continue to broadcast as much as he wants. Spotify, Apple et al simply no longer need to act as his accomplice in doing so.
27
@Stuart M I argue that you are misconstruing the issue. This issue is certainly about free speech.
While you are correct that private companies dont have to "pay" to support Infowars if they dont desire to, these same companies have to make a commitment to being either publishers of content or open channels of communication.
The problem is they are trying to capitalize on the best parts of both worlds instead of defining their services. By trying to be both content publishers and open platforms they are failing at both. You cannot claim to be an open platform for communication and simultaneously ban people according to a subjective and fluctuating definition of "hate speech" which often is decided politically and not morally, ethically, and philisophically.
Similarly you cannot claim to be a publisher of content and then refuse responsibility for the content, hate, threats, and other undesired material that appears on your site.
In my opinion the tech giants should immediately cease their efforts to be arbiters of American and International morality and allow people to make their own determinations of what is morally acceptable and unacceptable. We do not need large corporations nor government to filter our thoughts.
34
@Stuart M
Public networks, almost by definition, must have a monopoly. So invoking "free enterprise" does not work in the case of public networks. Twitter and facebook for example are public networks and if they enforce censorship, their monopoly powers allow them to shut off free speech.
9
"We do not need large corporations nor government to filter our thoughts."
Matthew, I would say that, based on recent events, the facts do not support that hypothesis.
"If We Silence Hate Speech, Will We Silence Resistance?"
First, there is no such thing as hate speech. There is only speech.
And speech, cannot constitute discrimination.
Discrimination is an - act - that deprives someone of their civil rights. No one has a civil right that protects them from hearing an opinion with which they disagree.
"Hate speech" is an invention of the left wing Progressives, a term used to deflect attention away from substantive deficiencies in left wing philosophy.
It is used in exactly the same way that the body snatching Pod People shrieked - to rally crowd and attack anyone who is not a Pod Person.
Justice Holmes himself expressed regret at the misapplication of the "shouting fire in a theater" phrase from Shenck v. United States that is so often taken out of context.
In context, it is bound to other text in the decision:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive [actual] evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Only speech that is expressed with the INTENT to create such a situation is not protected.
All other speech, is protected.
Period.
So, if "we" silence hate speech, "we" are enemies of the Constitution of the United States.
71
A great deal of hate speech is uttered with the intent to spark violence.
@Objectivist Nonsense, incitement to riot and incitement to murder are both speech and are criminal acts not protected by the First Amendment. Nor is slander. The problem with "hate speech" rules lie with defining it, not with their existence.
@Objectivist - Meanwhile the left supports Maxine Waters who actually tries to incite mob violence in direct contradiction to their previous stance that businesses should be forced to cater to people they disagree with. Their hypocrisy is staggering. Here they are saying they want to overthrow our corrupt Government and abolish ICE - and they hate Alex Jones because "he's a conspiracy theorist who thinks our Government is bad".
Thank you. Apparently too many Americans have had free speech for so long that they now take it for granted and think it will magically always be there for them when they need it, even if they start taking it away from fellow citizens they find disagreeable and scary.
That's simply not how we've managed to keep the First Amendment and our democracy alive for more than two centuries. It's always been a struggle and now is no time to give up.
33
@Guy Baehr 40% of millennials support government restriction of speech...I find this alarming.
3
@Ryan Walde From the comments I see here, the percentage of active New York Times readers who support restrictions on speech seems to be as high or higher. I find that even more alarming.
The most important part of the message here is that “hate speech” is an ambiguous term that can be applied to almost anything controversial. If we condemn some forms of speech because we find them hateful then we could be subject to the same condemnation for our own expressions. It’s a mistake therefor to try to silence speech (except for slander and incitement to violence, which have long been illegal). Instead we should condemn and argue against those statements which we find objectionable. Trying to draw a line between hate speech and legal protest will always fail.
38
Precisely. It becomes a slippery slope. The definition of hate speech is controlled by those in power. It will never be even-handed.
The US radical commitment to free speech is a shining beacon. It contrasts us with Europe, where they are tying themselves in knots trying to control speech.
If you let people talk, you will know what they think.
28
Fortunately for Americans who go about our lives without indulging our worst instincts and resorting to "hating" others as a means of coping with a complex world, the law is on the side of the innocent. That means that the Alex Jones' of the world are held accountable for the harm they perpetrate, and that is just as it should be.
In allowing Jones and others of his ilk to exploit their platforms social media has, for years, been a detrimental influence within our nation and throughout the world.
Twitter and other platforms should be shunned for refusing to reign in Jones and others like him. There are many positive ways to communicate and effect positive change and we can do it without hating and patronizing those who engage in it and sponsor it.
8
@Alabama Then shun them if you disagree, that’s you exorcising right to free expression. ‘Detrimental influence within our society’ according your subjective opinion. As to ‘harm they perpetuate,’ did Alex Jones call for harm against people or was he expressing free speech and people took offense and felt victimized by said speech? Who should determine what speech is or is not detrimental to society and therefore, should be banned ?
2
@Alabama You claim Alex Jones' views are unworthy of protection because they are "detrimental to our nation and the world" (your words).
There are many conservatives you believe the NY Times is "detrimental to our nation"; the president is convinced CNN is "an enemy of the people." If we take your word against Alex Jones, must we take their word against the NY Times or CNN?
I hope you can see that this doesn't work. A better solution is that which Thomas Jefferson believed: "In a free society, I must grant my neighbor the right to be wrong."
That's called freedom of speech. It's messy. It's sometimes ugly. But it's better than any other option.
2
@Alabama
Exactly who has been harmed by an Alex Jones opinion??? Opinions don't harm anyone. Policies do.
2
The political left is drifting dangerously close to outright hostility towards freedom of speech. Bolstered by social media, it is now much easier to group shame someone for a point of view deemed by self-appointed thought leaders to be “out of line.” In an era where rage can be tweeted out in the blink of an eye, including accusations of bigotry or racism, it is growing increasingly difficult to discuss issues of race, culture, criminal justice, or immigration in a constructive way across ideological and political lines. That is dangerous and will only lead to further polarization and extremism in our political discourse.
95
The left, such as it is, is not drifting. It has arrived at a position of condemning all speech that in anyway contradicts or causes one to consider that the ideas of the left, such as they are, may not hold up to scrutiny. Not all of the left surely. Just the ones controlling the microphones.
11
@Jon Substitute "political right" and the comments would be equally true.
1
@Jon Come on Jon! The "political left" is nowhere to be found in this discussion - or do you mean Facebook, Twitter and Youtube? What elected offices do they hold? What position in the Democratic party do they have? I suspect the real bottom line for these companies is that they don't want to get sued when some Alex Jones lunatics start shooting at parents of kids killed at Sandyhook (can you blame them?) As for being group shamed - perhaps if one is worried about that, maybe they should stop shouting hateful nonsense from every rooftop!
1
It seems to me that people are all for freedom of speech until someone, in exercising that freedom, says something with which they take offence. Anyhow, the best part of free speech is that it allows us to identity the truly reprehensible.
34
I agree with the column author on this, even though I disagree with him about rap music.
I think singing out threats and violent ideas encourages people to think that is acceptable. They hear it. It is alright for the person singing it out, who is well paid for that and admired for it. So why shouldn't they?
But I would not want to try to censor the author, or the artists either. Let them be accountable, but not silenced.
Silencing them, as he says, leaves us with gatekeepers to what we can hear, who have their own motives.
Who is in power now? Whose motives would control? Well, Trump and his guys are in power, and if they could, they would.
Think about that before empowering censorship.
18
@Mark Thomason In reference to rap musicians, Tupac and many others are artists and poets express themselves with there music. I am curious as to why you oppose free expression of rap while other mediums of expression you call for personal accountability? Books, like rap music, are just words expressing a point of view and many are banned because government believes the content encourages violence and threatening behavior. This is the problem: individuals subjectively label content as threatening through the prism of their own unconscious bias. Free speech for all, no matter what.
1
So, your six-year-old child and his or her classmates and teachers are slaughtered leaving behind a scene of vomit-inducing carnage. For the remainder of your life, you feel that searing cry of grief, which time never washes away or heals. The deranged monster pulling the trigger has imprisoned surviving parents and siblings with that grief.
Along comes another deranged monster, a garbage-mouth blowhard such as Alex Jones. He riles up like-minded people who then threaten you, publicly confront you, ambush you with their fear-inducing behavior- also known in law as simple assault. And now we’re making an argument that, “Oh my goodness, democracy will be undermined unless we let someone such as Mr. Jones imprison those irretrievably grief-stricken parents with his mentally deranged garbage that incites others of similar mind set to act out his verbal assaults and imprison those parents in fear.” Really?
Have you ever heard of Thomas Hobbes, the founder of modern political philosophy and his statement that without civil controls we’ll return to the state of nature and live a short and brutal existence?
Ask the tens of millions of mothers who, each day, rein in this verbal garbage as they work to raise their children to value behavior that creates a decent life of co-existence. Ask them how they feel about those such as Mr. Jones who encourage language and deranged fantasies that incite violence.
The 21st Century doesn't outlaw applying common sense to find middle ground.
23
@Liam Jumper Yes really. The First Amendment is worth Alex Jones, just like the Second Amendment is worth Sandy Hook.
When I hear "Freedom isn't free." I no longer assume it's the military that pays the tab out there somewhere. The alternative is that somebody you don't get to pick tells you what you're allowed to say and what the correct conclusions to draw are.
30
@Liam Jumper
Interesting that you should use Hobbes to support your views. Yes, I most certainly have studied Hobbes, and are you aware that what he meant by what you call "civil controls" was a government run by a monarch with absolute power? NOT a figurehead monarch like in Britain, but a Saudi-style monarch with absolutely no checks.
You speak of the harms that the Alex Joneses can cause by riling up others. The Supreme Court has addressed this quite clearly. If and when Alex Jones and his ilk employ speech that causes a clear and present danger to public safety, he can be silenced. But the hypothetical danger (as that to which you allude) is not enough (for government) to silence him, because in doing so, we draw lines that begin to blur upon close examination, and we risk the dangers pointed out in this very article.
25
@Shelden I read Alex was a millionaire. The government can't silence him but they can restrict his platforms. Free speech is ok but it shouldn't be used to mis-inform the public.
1
If we seek to protect education, health care. the environment, pay attention to climate change, and have responsible immigration we will help silence hate speech, and we will get rid of Trump as well, in the process. That will certainly help silence hate speech.
4
@joyce Problem for you is that liberty loving people are armed and willing to water the tree of liberty with your blood when you try to silence us.
1
Free speech in all forms, including offensive or what some may deal hateful,should be protected from prohibition by any government agency or dependent (ie colleges or businesses,etc receiving federal funds) it is always better that the light of day be shone upon the extremist fringes, less they fester in the shadows without scrutiny.
20
So if I understand this article correctly, the left is against hate speech, but their dilemma is that their efforts to end it might be successful and then they’ll be unable to use hate speech against Donald Trump and his supporters. Yikes....
56
I do not believe that the mind of a person expressing ill will towards others is free. They are imprisoned by the hate they feel and are unable to think clearly or rationally or with good will towards others.
Free speech is only possible when the people speaking have mutual respect and speak with the intention to understand each other. Hate speech is a violation of human decency and places all in hearing range in danger of violent thought and violent action.
6
@Ineffable The concept of a "free mind" is less actionable than "hate". People must be able to say what they believe to be true. This does not protect them from the consequences of their speech.
8
@Ineffable no. Free speech, the more of it, extinguishes hate speech. We've been curtailing free speech for a while now, and hate speech has gotten worse. No one can honestly claim we have progressed in the right direction in terms of ending hate speech. Besides, hate speech is such a loose term that it lost its original meaning. Hate speech is being used to punish political speech today. You are not allowed to have a wrong opinion, if you do, it's considered hate speech by anybody who hates your opinion. There is due process, there is no discourse.
2
@Ineffable Speech is protected by the Constitution. PERIOD. Incitement to violence is not allowed and neither is libel. But all other forms of speech is and should be protected. Freedom of Speech protects speech you find reprehensible NOT speech you agree with. Dont agree woth someone? Destroy their argument with your own speech. Someone says something that offends you? Walk away or, better yet, dont let it affect you. But jailing people fo speech is an awfully dangerous idea. Because eventually it could be your speech that someone deems offensive. Or it could be your criticism of the government that lands you in jail. Its a slippery slope.
5
Dr. Nielson only gets halfway there. He gives no full-throated defense of the First Amendment or the concept of freedom of speech. He is only concerned that it may impact a narrow faction that he supports. He should be concerned about everybody's right to free speech. I want to hear all sides, no matter how much I disagree. I give him a D for his effort.
71
This is NOT a First Amendment issue. The government is not silencing him. Rather, a private corporation is not allowing him to use their platform. Don't conflate the two.
If I do something that violates Apple's EULA, then Apple is completely within their rights to throw me out.
5
@S. Pennington Well said, but go even further; rest assured the Left's real intention is to silence the Right, whatever it takes. They started that process years ago. They will also fail, at their pwn peril.
1
@Santa When these companies censor only certain forms of speech (conservative) they cross the imaginary line from being a platform for free expression (yes, they maintain that is what they are) and into the realm that newspapers magazines and television dwell They are content providers and fall under a different section of the law.
In a place where free speech is valued, this is a slippery slope. The advent of social media, has taken this idea to places, that our founding fathers, never could have imagined.
This is a wonderful article, on a very tough subject, in an even tougher point in American history.
Presented in this context, it makes sense to be on guard, especially considering the fact the Russians invaded our sovereignty. Like everything else, that has to do with humans, a little regulation doesn’t hurt.
With that being said, it is incumbent on all Americans to be open to, and involved in their communities and government.
Something, I might add, President Obama forewarned the American people, before leaving office.
Prophetic words from an honorable man.
16
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . . "
Apple, YouTube, Spotify and Facebook are business corporations, they are not the government. The Constitution prevents the government from interfering with free speech, but business corporations are free to allow or disallow whoever and whatever they choose. That these businesses chose to refuse to give Alex Jones a further platform to spread his hate and misinformation does NOT give the government the right to censor, to ban books or to abridge free speech.
Why is it that when a company decides to do the responsible thing and not to allow the democratic processes to be tainted by hatred and misinformation, men get apoplectic and argue for corporations being forced to provide a platform for right-wing hatred, racism and misinformation??
The First Amendment, again, applies to governmental bodies, not to business or nonprofit corporations.
62
@Earthling What is it called when public universities prohibit free speech, when they ban certain groups from speaking? They are in existence per a government charter and funding.
33
@Earthling It seems to me that if corporations operate under government license and control, then they should also be required to honor constitutional rights relating to free speech, etc. The current situation is simply and excuse to censor without any controls or recourse, and must be put down forcefully.
13
@Earthling You make a fair enough point, however the combination of the those platforms you have mentioned control greater than a 1/3 share of ALL MEDIA in the country. By banning voices from their platform, they are conducting defacto censorship via their monopoly. Perhaps they have the right to keep these voices out of their spaces from a business standpoint. If that is the case, however, immediate steps need to be taken to break up their monopolies. There is legal precedent for this (Microsoft forced to allow Netscape Navigator to run on their OS system, for example).
10
THIS RIGHT HERE. The reason why our founding fathers saw the need for completely free speech (less speech which immediately results in physical damage to others) was that the speech most worthy of protection was that which caused offense or discomfort to others. The media companies in question have already shown their hands that they are picking and choosing which "speech" should pass it's filter based on partisan political stands and not a consistent and reasonable standard that applies the same to everyone. Orwell warned us of this. I'm confident though that people will seek out sources of information that don't censor speech it doesn't like, and allows for an intellectually honest debate that reveals ideas for all they are worth - not protect us from the ones they think are scary.
42
@Khopp. Where do you get the idea that the Founders believed in absolute freedom of speech? Would you suggest that George Washington wasn’t in favor of forbidding incitements to violence? Speech that causes discomfort is one thing. Speech that gets people to make violent threats and then execute them is another. If you don’t want to make that distinction, fine. But be aware that there are consequences and one of them is the loss of freedom of speech by those who get killed. One of these days after somebody gets killed their relatives are going to sue Twitter for providing a forum for hate speech. God willing a jury holds them responsible. We’ll find out shortly when we see if Alex Jones gets away with risking peoples lives with incendiary speech. If he does get away with it we’re all finished anyway. In the meantime, let’s not lose the distinctions. Sometimes the filter is necessary to save lives. And by the way, Orwell didn’t make grand statements about freedom of speech. But he did make grand statements about the power and abuse of language and he would’ve been the first to say that if your speech incites others to kill people, you should be on trial that afternoon. That’s not suppressing speech. That’s protecting us from people who want us dead. That was the per curiam decision in Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969 and it’s as good today as it was then.
14
@Kknopp
Problem is, to Democrats, Orwell was a manual for good governance, not a warning.
1
Fundamentally, the concept of hate speech is something that has migrated from the EU to the US, particularly to college campuses. Here, he draw the line at speech that may incite imminent violence. In the EU, people can be tried and convicted for speech (including Facebook posts) that "incites hate" without anyone getting anything other than their feelings hurt.
"Hate speech" as a concept really has as much place as laws against blasphemy here in the US.
45
@Middleman MD
The same can be done in our neighbor to the north, Canada, as well. In South America you are likely to be shot and dismembered for "offensive" speech.
@S. Pennington: in CANADA -- which does NOT have a guarantee of free speech to its citizens -- you can be charged with a "hate crime' and go to jail, for saying "marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman".
So, what Mr. Neilson is saying is that it would be great to silence people he and like-minded people do not like, but they have to be careful b/c it might backfire on them. That's true, no doubt. A great deal of politics is trying to prevent the other side from getting to speak. Both sides do it and it is always repugnant. Alex Jones (who I know next to nothing about) may be hateful, but I have heard hate from BLM groups, regardless of what Mr. Nielson thinks, and I want them both to be able to speak - just not to disrupt others. I have to disagree with him that they are not also a hate group, just one supported by most of the media. I grew up revering MLK, Jr. and his role model, Gandhi, and I appreciate them more and more as the lessons of self-sacrifice, personal morality, responsibility and self-esteem they taught are buried by political correctness, hate speech laws, harassment and like methods. What happened that people have so little self-esteem and are so eager to declare themselves victims that we now live in a world where people literally walk on egg-shells, afraid to speak, afraid to be called a racist (by actual racists), afraid to be sued, so sensitive that I have to doubt that kids are being taught anymore - sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me. It all makes a mockery of all the great strides that have been made in the country of ridding itself of oppression in the most diverse country in the world.
Everyone should get to speak.
50
@David H. Eisenberg wrote:
"So, what Mr. Neilson is saying is that it would be great to silence people he and like-minded people do not like, but they have to be careful b/c it might backfire on them."
Nope, that's not what Mr. Nelson is saying. Read more carefully.
9
@JJ I did read it. I suggest you do the same. You can start right at the beginning where he sets up his entire article in the first three paragraphs by stating that while it's tempting to applaud Banning groups they don't like, "it may have unintended consequences, especially for people of color." . . . "Is we become overzealous in our efforts to limit do-called" hate speech, we run the risk of setting a trap for the very people we're trying to defend."
Groups which are partisan and especially those based on hate always think they are pure and their opponents not. Both sides.
@David H. Eisenberg
You really should learn something about Alex Jones. I'm fairly certain that you would agree that he should be forced to put a sock in it (he's making parents of dead children miserable by deliberately spreading lies - there are legal limits to free speech, btw).
I think that Nielson means that if powerful people are allowed to define what hate speech is, they will define it in ways that selectively silences the powerless. At another place here, I tried to gently move him away from defending people like Louis Farrakhan by quoting The Beatles. Apparently I was the only one who got that's what I was doing. I also tried to get folks to toughen up and use good judgment in a way that puts limits what can be considered hate speech (I agree that many people define it much, much too broadly - and again, no one but me appeared to care much that I was doing that).
Many good points. But is making the police a protected class in regards to hate crimes really a bad idea?
10
@Bruce Thomson
No, but it's unnecessary. Crimes against police are already capital offenses.
@Bruce Thomson:
Yes.
2
Hate speech may be like pornography in that, "when you hear it, you know it."
This well-known aphorism is, while similar to pornography, much different in one crucial respect. The meaning of speech depends on the speaker and the listener. Context, tonal stress, and other factors change the meaning for the speaker and the listener. Just consider spoken speech vs written speech.
The cure? Open minds and the willingness to dial down our deeply held convictions while truly listening to others. We are not all that different. We just think we are.
5
What the author fails to understand is that incendiary speech from the "left" polarizes as much as it does from the "right". She takes the position that hate speech from the "left" should be accepted because it is consistent with views she holds. Other people have different views. Turn the volume down and maybe we can talk to each other.
53
@Jim Larson City people like the author ignore poverty and step over or around homeless - ignore someone broke down on the highway - are rude drivers - have filthy mouths - are mostly democrat socialists - live in egg cartons built on rivers of sewage - breath filthy air every day. And they want decent hardworking rural Christian families to vote for their left wing dictator wannabes. Any one listening?
Another title to this piece might be: Is it possible to ban THEIR hate speech without banning OURS?
Answer: No
And the sticky part: Who decides what “hate speech” is or isn’t? There’s the rub.
Bottom line: Believe in humanity to decide what ideas/values should survive and which should perish. Defend free speech, including ugly and hateful speech. History has shown that the alternative is much worse.
139
@Luke,
Believe in humanity to decide what ideas/values should survive and which should perish. Defend free speech, except for hateful speech.
Then there is no need for the alternative.
@Luke, you are free to hate anyone that you choose but you are not free to spread lies and to slander another especially when you do so to incite violence. Civil society require standards that is what makes it civil. Want to speed in your car go ahead just recognize that you may get a speeding ticket or at the worst kill someone. We have rules of the road for a reason.
1
@Luke
It takes a lot more than "theirs and ours" labeling to create moral equivalence. Knowingly false speech cynically propagated to sell advertising is not just someone's differing opinion.
The right used to hate free speech because it gave the left the ability to challenge their awful practices and beliefs. Now the left hates free speech because it gives the right the ability to challenge theirs. Seems to me that free speech is doing its job nicely and we should leave it alone.
26
Free Speech is cherished because the truth is best revealed when everyone has a voice and everyone is heard. This is made impossible by people who call for a group to be excluded or silenced, be it people from a colour, race or anyone else. The voices of those who would exclude them should be shut down, because what they advocate opposes Free Speech. On the other hand, people who are calling for a seat at the table, no matter how loud or fierce: these people should be heard and their voice protected because they may hold a part of the truth that everyone ought to hear.
12
No one things Alex Jones is just expressing an opinion. He is offering unsubstantiated theories that are not supported by any evidence simply to cause fear and spread hatred. I know that Trump being in office makes it seem like no facts matter anymore, but they really do. We have to be able to take action against real hate-speech without wringing our hands and pretending that actual critical opinions are in danger.
16
@J Udall - And how do we determine what is "Real hate-speech?
2
@J Udall Jones is doing it to make money. He could care less about the rubes who follow him.
It's amusingly entertaing that alot of people opposed to the administration are in favor of, wait for it, handing that administration the power to silence them.
Give them the power to silence the gad fly, and they most certainly will. Its been repeated countless times, why repeat the same action and expect a different result, its madness.
22
“Hate” is the wrong adjective for this kind of speech. It is extremely vague. And polarizing. As if only the low income, low info deplorables were the only ones who hated. It would be more accurate (and hopefully shaming) to refer to bigoted speech as either bigotry itself or just plain old “stupid” speech.
5
I strongly support the right to hate speech and the right to support BDS. But I support in much stronger terms taking away public funds from groups/people who engage in them. Plus I reserve my right to hate them.
10
Slippery slope this - trying to define 'hate speech'. I'd rather people be able to say what they want in observance of the First Amendment. Leave it to the People to decide what to shun.
42
All very true. But the ready counter-argument is that it is a risk worth taking. We are confronting not just an American mobilization of the authoritarian right but a global mobilization. To pretend otherwise, that these are normal times for generous, principled, equal give and take in some free marketplace of ideas, is to have one's head in the sand. A classic liberal democratic mistake when confronted by off-the-scale, truly venomous, unscrupulous forces. Today, we are fighting not different ideas, not even different coherent ideologies, but cynically wielded and profitably self-sustaining propaganda - deliberate lies and disinformation. There may be some collateral damage in taking it down, but so be it. There will be time to repair that later.
66
Thank you, RRI, for speaking out on the importance of doing the right thing. How refreshing.
4
@RRI No. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy.
@RRI
There was a time in our nation's history and in the world's history when abolitionist thought or speech was considered vile and repugnant. Folks would be demonized for making comments in support of ending human slavery. The people demonizing that type of speech and thought were wielding self sustaining propaganda. Personally, I'm glad the message was finally able to emerge and slavery was ended. When I juxtapose your above sentiments with the circumstance of that time in our history, I cannot imagine someone saying "lets silence the slavery critics, sure the will be collateral damage but there will be time to repair that later." Times are no different now. No one's head is in the sand. The events of 2018 are no more significant than 1818 or 1518 and so on. Thoughts and speech should never be censored. It dampens progress. It's an attempt to alter the evolution of society and remove individual freedom in favor of corporate and/or government control. Let the surfs decide not the lords.
The author overlooks a key fact, which compromises the analysis:
“Hate speech” only means speech with which I disagree. Speech with which I do agree is commendably passionate expression that is obviously protected by the 1st Amendment.
That’s just common sense, people.
61
'“Hate speech” only means speech with which I disagree.'
You can define "hate speech" any way you want, but that won't accomplish anything except to cause confusion.
Here is a more thoughtful definition:
"hate speech: Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation." (Oxford online dictionary)
10
Isn't there a key difference between the response of YouTube, Facebook, and Apple to Alex Jones' content, and the response of the government (especially the FBI's response) to the Black Lives Matter movement?
In the one case, it is private companies enforcing out a poorly articulated policy, whereas on the other, it is the government dubiously carrying out action to block what is protected speech, not so?
In the case of Alex Jones isn't it also arguable that he has engaged in behaviour with precise legal definitions like slander, libel, defamation, and incitement to violence? If he did, those companies would have been irresponsible not to ban his content on their sites.
33
For hate speech to be criminalized it needs to be defined. The fact that someone might try to characterize speech that he doesn't like or finds hurtful as hate speech even though it doesn't fit within whatever the legal definition is (calling for a boycott is not hate speech under any plausible definition, and shame on the New York Legislature for even attempting to suggest that it is) does not mean we should abandon the concept. Battery is a crime, but not all unwelcome touching (e.g., accidental jostling on the subway) is battery. The fact that the First Amendment protects religious liberty does not (or at least should not) give anyone the right to use their religion to deny others their rights. Hate speech is hurtful, and has no place in the political discourse the First Amendment is supposed to protect.
7
Commercial companies are not providers of 'public square' service no matter how much people wish or think they are.
But because Facebook, Google and the like are so powerful and necessary, they are viewed and expected to act as a public service. Paradoxically, they start to act as a government agency with political motivation that may even hurt their bottom line.
If people don't like large companies deciding their rights, costs, or content without representation then they should demand a tight government control or company break up.
Regardless of who contols it, free speech is not a free-for-all. Limits must be imposed to avoid hurting innocent people. This is especially true when society is unstable since free speech turns desperate impressionable individuals into a mob or terrorists.
18
@redpill
You write for limits on free speech, justified as follows: “This is especially true when society is unstable since free speech turns desperate impressionable individuals into a mob or terrorists.”
Yet who decides why and when society is unstable? Is this not the justification used during WW II for America’s interment of Japanese-Americans? Aren’t many Americans now in a dither about President Trump, making wild assertions and accusations, rightly and wrongly, to assuage the sting that America is not what they imagined in their bi-coastal bubble world existence.
Freedom isn’t free. It means allowing people the right to express themselves, no matter how odious their opinions. Yet it also means having sufficiently robust community and government standards to separate the legitimate grievances from the rants so real redress can be taken. Without that, you’re either on the path to anarchy or fascism.
3
Public censorship of speech has a very predictable outcome. The speech is never silenced.
History repeats itself time and time again. Just look at the last major effort of censorship of "inappropriate speech" - the USSR. Despite spending measurable quantities of their GDP to silence "hate" speech the exact opposite happened.
9
Perhaps freedom of speech should be clarified to mean freedom to speak one's opinions. What is at issue here is not opinion, it is leveling of baseless and malicious accusations, false assertions of fact, something that could properly be regarded as libel or slander. Perhaps our concept of rights of the accused should be coupled with the idea of responsibilities of the accuser. Saying or passing along a baseless accusation could indeed be a crime.
32
This is a thought-provoking article, so much so that I began reading feeling fairly sure that I disagreed with the premise, only to find myself having to concede the author's well-made points.
Yet I cannot concede completely. While it is true that hate speech is too loosely defined in current applications, I cannot imagine a society in which no limits are set on what one person can say to or about another. Words can be very powerful weapons, triggering responses that range from riots to suicides.
However, the primary problem is not hate speech but hate itself. And, sadly, we cannot stop hate by legislative or private industry bans. Hence, I believe our primary focus needs to be on cultivating love and compassion. Although this may appear to be no solution at all, there is a far greater power at work in acts of love and compassion than in aggressive protest.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Gandhi. The Dalai Lama. Mother Teresa. These are names we know. How many more there are that most of us will never encounter as they quietly go about the business of changing the world.
17
@drmaryb Gandhi was an anti-Semite. He also believed in a racial hierarchy in which Africans were inferior to Indians and other "Aryan" peoples. I suspect that some of the people calling for bans on "hate speech" would regard Gandhi's statements about Africans as examples of the kind of speech they'd like to ban.
It seems that "hate speech" is becoming anything said by anyone you disagree with.
Weaponizing words is a sure way to destroy freedom of speech. The social websites don't seem to have a lucid--much less common--definition of what does or does not constitute hate speech. Besides, who gave these websites and the people (zillionaires) operating them the right to define hate speech and limit free speech?
24
@Mon Ray These *privately owned* sites have every right to define what they find acceptable in their space (even if the owners are 'zillionaires'). The *government* is limited by the 1st amendment and cannot make certain speech illegal.
Again, these are privately operated web services. They have every right to decide what they will and won't allow. What would violate freedom of speech would be if the government declared some speech illegal.
1
I wish the term " hate speech" would just be dropped. Whether certain speech is hate speech or not hate speech depends on the opinion of one person or one group. With changing cultures. what is hate speech today may not be hate speech in 20 years and , of course, the opposite is true.
37
Oh My Goodness.
A private organization can ALWAYS decide what it hosts.
If they want to silence ANYONE, guess what? They CAN.
Otherwise you are saying that all of us need to host hate - or whatever - in our living rooms.
Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify owe NOTHING to anyone about ANYTHING. If they want you off, you are OFF. End of story. Or propose that the force of LAW require them to post content. Try that. You think it will succeed?
Public square : private organization - public square : private organization. See the difference?? Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
165
@Matthew
They public square (government) compels private organizations to do things all day every day. Based on your argument whites and minorities should be using different bathrooms and drinking from different fountains. All private organizations owe many things to all people, no? Would you consider freedom of speech a civil liberty upon which private organizations should not be able discriminate?
@Matthew While this is true, if a large part of discourse gets expressed on private platforms (originating in the U.S.), do the platforms bear some responsibility of upholding 1st amendment rights?
@Matthew
"A private organization can ALWAYS decide what it hosts."
That's not quite true. TCourts, in certain situations, have required malls to allow for demonstrations/handing out fliers when they are public spaces.
Mall:1960-1990s::Social Media:2010s
New York Senators have the power to control public money, having more of it themselves than student organizations. That is indeed a dangerous slope, as well the rich's self appointed definition of words like hate, conservative, liberal, progressive, radical, "too political".... I prefer the way Ice T put it when someone complained about his TV perp walk - freedom of the press baby!
2
A bully only wins when you give up, or in particular when you give them a platform or voice. - the press is especially derelict in doing so each and every day when they elevate the biggest troll of them all: The President of the United States.
Having said that, free speech has to be free for all, regardless if someone is screaming at the top of their lungs to which you may find abhorrent. That is the deal for freedoms.
The whole idea is to wear you down (which I will readily admit they have done to a certain degree as more and more people switch off social media altogether) However, you have to understand that there will ALWAYS be more of us than there will be of them,
Continue on saying what you believe and simply ignore the noise wherever you can. The most powerful idea of free speech comes from voting. You vote everyday when you decide what to say, ignore and where to ply your business. You also vote with actual votes in the ballot box.
Make it all count. Speak up.
15
Of course this is right. As always, we can go back to a statement often attributed to Voltaire (dead white man) but more likely invented by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (dead white woman) -- "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."
That expresses the basis of "liberal" thought as it originated in the Enlightenment: the ability to see beyond one's own opinions and prejudices to the larger (more abstract) value of competing views. This is what has allowed our civilization to advance in the last 200 years or so. Perhaps we can keep it going. Perhaps not.
75
Well said and exactly what we were taught in middle and high school in the 80’s. I hope that is still what is taught but I fear it isn’t. The Democratic Party is going to lose if they continue to turn their back on this pillar of free society.
35
@John G i Like this train of thought ..best to retain the value of competing voices.
I would like to add that slander and libel should still stand as punishable offenses, but that the generic phrase " hate speech".. is much too vague. Hate speech probably is accompanied by Slander or Libel and thus those portions would be and should be against the law.
3
Canada outlaws hate speech. Google this. Yet Canada is infinitely more welcoming of immigrants, and of people of color, than the US (on average). Look to Canada for the clear answer to your question. Why do so many Americans assume their treatment of "free speech", drafted so long ago, is somehow perfectly articulated?
28
@JinRavenna
It figures that you are from Seattle. Read the First Amendment and then try to understand that if powers that are opposed to your viewpoint get a large majority, they can snuff out your right to free speech if we disregard the plain language of the First Amendment. All political speech is protected, not just that of the Left or Right.
9
what do people think will happen when repugnant speech is made criminal. once you set a line it can be moved. best to have no line no?
21
@DW
Is anyone proposing that? No.
7
@Matthew Not yet. Give it time. Once any speech is restricted, it will be a foot in the door and there will be no end to it.
@Muskwa
Actually, you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, and there are laws against libel and slander.
So, . . . . In general, no constitutional amendment is absolute.
I think that folks keep wanting to find some simple black-and-white rule to apply toan inherently difficult problem. Thinking (using one's judgment) is hard, but sometimes it is required.
There are plenty of platforms for people to espouse their hatred. This includes standing on a corner yelling their hateful thoughts. Self-publishing hateful books. That said, platforms do not have to protect that type of speech. And that is not censorship.
30
A majority of what HE spews is hate speech. How can we silence that ??? Here’s a start : VOTE in November. Straight DEM ticket. Seriously.
14
I've never liked the term "hate speech." It's far too vague and subjective. Direct threats -- a cross-burning or a noose targeting an individual or a group -- can be identified. But liberals need to insist on the first amendment, and interpret it as widely as possible. The first amendment protects all of us.
People who fear "too much" free speech are actually expressing a lack of confidence in democracy itself. Rather than allowing the demos to make its own (sometimes terrible) decisions, these left-wing autocrats would have someone -- a judge, a university committee, a high school principal, Donald Trump, the CEO of Google -- decide who gets to speak. That makes them no better than the right wing, which has never valued freedom.
47
@Dr. J.--Let's apply your points further to how people get their news. According to the FCC, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC states: "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest." Because it broadcasts over cable, Fox isn't held to the rules and regulations as legitimate news organizations broadcasting real news over public airwaves. (This could also be said of private companies transmitting over the Internet.) Fox News claims to be an entertainment medium, perhaps to save itself from civil penalties and government purview and liability--but its lies and distortions have had a deleterious and outsized impact on the U.S. and public discourse.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Fox-News-registered-as-a-news-organization-with...
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadcast-journalism
@Dr. J. was totally with you until you felt the need to slander and generalize with your last sentence.
2
The only way to guarantee free speech for you or me is to guarantee it for everyone.
186
@ianwriter - no, absolutely EVERY Constitutional right has limits. Don't say things that endanger other peoples' live and we'll be just fine.
@ianwriter It seems that "hate speech" is becoming anything said by anyone you disagree with.
Weaponizing words is a sure way to destroy freedom of speech. The social websites don't seem to have a lucid--much less common definition of what does or does not constitute hate speech. Besides, who gave these websites and the people (zillionaires) operating them the right to define hate speech and limit free speech?
5
@ianwriter You have right to free speech. But not to an audience.
This does not need to be an all or nothing proposition. Some European countries have done a better job of moderating hate speech: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-europe-can-tea... AND https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Europe-polices-hat... .
The Heritage Foundation and others have attempted to demonize those attempts, as though the first amendment were somehow so sacrosanct that nothing can be touched. That is not the case, but we cannot do it without more general citizen involvement. No one is saying we should not be careful in the process.
Looking at our (not so) social media, it is not clear that our free speech laws continue to serve us well. I understand the problems of tinkering with our first amendment, but if we cannot adapt to a changing world the ability to promote more tolerance is likely to continue to suffer.
4
@JSK I totaly agree "it does not need to be an all or nothing". And though difficult, the change is needed. And there will be always civil disobedience as an option for those who think that something important was lost along the way.
@JSK Britain: THIS WHAT HAPPENS:
Britain: Nine people a day are being arrested for posting allegedly offensive messages online as police step up their campaign to combat social media hate speech.
France: French President Emmanuel Macron ordered the arrest of his opponent from the 2017 presidential election, Marine Le Pen. After journalists drew comparisons between Le Pen’s party, the National Front, and ISIS, Le Pen tweeted out pictures of ISIS victims and pointed out how absurd it was to compare a political party in a democracy with a brutal theocracy that kills or enslaves all who disagree with its medieval strictures.
The Macron government’s response was to order Le Pen’s arrest on March 1. The crime—circulating the images—is punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of €75,000 euros (about $92,000). That is to say: the president of France wants to jail and fine his political opponent for things she said in public.
’ "When you have these laws on the books that are difficult to get your hands around, these are the problems you're going to get," said Roy Gutterman, the director of the Newhouse School's Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University.
"Are you going to prosecute one, and then let somebody else go? Which racial or religious epithet is worthy of prosecution and which are worthy of letting slide? It's a real slippery slope, even if the stuff is hateful and offensive?”
10
@Ryan Walde
I would push another point. These hate groups have what amounts to free access to the public airways, given modern social media. In the past, there had been much more editorial control. People could address a local audience, but not transmit so widely, so fast and with such repetition. Our constitution was not constructed with modern means of electronic dissemination in mind.
Regulating some elements of hate speech need not be focused on individual attacks. The NYTs would not allow many of these comments under discussion on the boards here...with good reason.
In this era of Trump how hate reigns
All skins that are not White disdains,
Dr. Nielsen's advice
At this time is not wise
With the alt-right's insidious gains.
7
Some of the examples you discuss here are horrifying, but let’s be clear about Alex Jones. He’s not being silenced by the government in any way. Powerful brands like Facebook and Apple are just choosing to make a statement about the kind of companies they are. That’s their prerogative.
156
@James
Yes, just like a baker can choose not to create a cake for someone to make a statement about the kind of baker he is.
10
@James - Would you support, say, Verizon refusing to provide service to Leftists? Or do you think Verizon should be required to let ANYONE use it? What is the difference between communicating with Verizon and communicating with Twitter or Facebook? You want to censor the viewpoint of Alex Jones but the speech of Antifa, BLM or Leftists who want to literally overthrow our government by violence is okay? Would you favor any public communication service like Twitter if, instead of Alex Jones, they censored the comments of Leftists, or would you support Leftists filing lawsuit after lawsuit to demand that Leftist viewpoints also be heard on such a right-wing forum, on the basis that it discriminates against blacks or the LGBTQRS-Z community, or that such Conservative web sites are "hate speech" and therefore should be shut down entirely?
How far down the slippery slope of censorship do you want to slide?
7
@James
Agree. Facebook, Apple (iTunes), and Spotify are private companies, the same as the Times and the Washington Post. The newspapers are allowed to control or moderate their platforms, so there's no reason why FB and Apple shouldn't be able to as well.
Alex Jones' rants are not just hate speech. They are more akin to shouting "Fire" in a theater when there is no fire. He promotes dangerous circumstances and situations.
1
I agree this trend is dangerous. Free speech really only matters for speech you don’t like.
90
@Tam Hunt sorry, there is more going on with Alex Jones' speech than personal taste. There is such a think as fact and accountability.
1
@RD
On of the more than personal taste that was (is) going on is that he appeared to be inciting violence. To the extent that incitement is imminent, you can't do that (Brandenburg V. Ohio). It became clear that he was pushing that envelope. He was also slandering the parents of the victims. There really are limits to free speech.