By Selwyn Duke

There are some people in the media who are content to recycle thoughts on a regular basis — I guess you could call it groundhog-day commentary.  I’m not one of them, so when I find it necessary to address hate-speech laws — something I’ve treated thoroughly — part of me just wants to roll my eyes.  Yet an article in the International Herald Tribune titled "Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S." really raised my ire.

Hate-speech laws are, ultimately, an effort at thought control.  But I’ve illustrated this in the past, and here I want to emphasize a different aspect of the matter.

If there’s anything truly offensive and maddening in the arena of hate speech, it’s the sanctimony of those who claim to be able to define it.  Just such an individual is one Jeremy Waldron, a man billed as a "legal philosopher."  Said this nominal thinker:

"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken . . . when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."

The Tribune also cites Anthony Lewis, and characterizes his position in the following way:

But even Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections ‘in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.’ In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

First, let’s start with the obvious.  "Even Lewis, a liberal," they say?  Are they kidding?  Please show me hate-speech laws that are not the handiwork of liberals.  Such legislation always stifles traditionalist dissent precisely because it is drawn up by leftists.  So, please, you quasi-tabloid writers, don’t pretend as if liberals are great guarantors of free speech.  If you want to advocate hate-crime laws, do so, but don’t try to fool the public into believing that you walk some civil-rights high road. 

Then, Lewis mentions this age, where "words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism."  What acts would those be?  Whose handiwork have they been?  The terrorism bedeviling us is perpetrated by Moslems; thus, if your true intention is to counteract such evil, why are your oh-so-noble efforts to ban hate speech never directed at Moslems, but at their critics?

Answer: Because you’re phonies.

You define "hate" as anything contrary to your agenda, and hate-speech laws are simply a way of stifling dissent while lathering the lipstick of compassion on your pig of tyranny.  When are your laws used to punish anti-white or anti-Christian "hate speech"?  You’ll have to forgive me, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

The most outrageous part of this sham, however, is something else.  When someone levels criticism, it’s often hard to determine whether or not it was driven by hatred.  You can certainly say that it is harsh or mild, but if it’s the former, is that cause to criminalize it?  After all, it is said that the Truth hurts.

Now we get down to brass tacks.  At the end of the day, it’s irrevelevant if a statement is harsh or mild, "hateful" (supposedly) or loving.  The only relevant factor is whether it is true or untrue.

And this is the most fundamental problem with the arbiters of so-called hate speech.  The truth of the matter is of no consequence to them.  Rather, they label something hateful when it satisfies two criteria: It must offend someone (and most everything offends someone) and it must be contrary to their agenda.  And the Truth be darned.

Now here’s the main problem.  The Truth should never be stifled, even if it ruffles some feathers.  Thus, if you are going to differentiate between positive and negative speech (private institutions may have reason to do this), you have to be able to distinguish between the Truth and lies.  And this, my friends, is why the Waldrons and Lewises of the world are the last people who should be making such judgments.

I can tell you for a fact that those two men do not even believe in Truth; they are moral relativists.  Thus, to paraphrase Joe Sobran, they claim to want to do good, while also claiming to not know what good is.  Where do you get off, Waldron and Lewis, thinking for even a moment that you, men who are so morally confused that you believe morality doesn’t even exist (only opinion), are in any way qualified to judge the acceptability of speech?  Who do you think you are?  Can you tell me that your beliefs, those stating that "hate speech" truly is hateful and should be discouraged, have a basis in anything beyond your emotions?  Can you say they have a foundation in objective reality?

The fact is, Waldron, you are no kind of philosopher, for such a person searches for Truth.  Yet you set out on the quest while believing there are no answers to be found.  That is not only misguided, it is insane.

When you and your ilk will at least acknowledge that Rules (from on high) exist, then you may, perhaps, have some credibility when dictating to the rest of us what the rules should be.  Until then, you are just foolish men, posing as intellectuals, playing a children’s game of make-believe morality.

Whatever anyone believes about hate speech, there is one thing for certain.  The Waldrons and Lewises of the world are the last people who could ever know what it is.

Physician, heal thyself.

                      Protected by Copyright