Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech
One of the immutable constants of human life is that what
goes around comes around. That truth is freshly relevant in light of the death
of Charlie Kirk, who spent his public life preaching a poisonous mixture of
hate and violence under the banner of “free speech.”
Like many on the far right, Kirk cloaked his rhetoric in the
First Amendment, arguing that anything he said was protected, no matter how
inflammatory or reckless. Yet he went further: He openly rationalized violence
as a necessary consequence of speech, insisting that provocation and aggression
were the natural, even desirable, outgrowth of his so-called defense of
liberty.
But here is what too many forget: free speech is not
absolute. The law has long recognized its limits. Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes famously explained that one cannot falsely shout “fire” in a crowded
theater without consequence. Why? Because speech that predictably causes harm
is not speech at all.
We need to explain this clearly and enforce it consistently:
hate speech is not free speech. It is an expensive speech. It costs society
peace, civility, and sometimes lives. And today, it is overwhelmingly deployed
on the far right, where demonization and threats have become part of daily
discourse.
The First Amendment protects the free exchange of ideas. But
when speech becomes weaponized to silence, intimidate, or incite, it ceases to
be speech and becomes a form of violence. Genuine free speech fosters debate;
hate speech poisons it.
How to Impose Limits on Hate Speech
- Update
Legal Standards for Incitement
- Current
U.S. law prohibits speech “directed to inciting imminent lawless action”
and “likely to produce such action.” That bar is often too high to stop
hate speech before it does real damage. Congress and the courts should
refine this test to include speech that predictably fosters violence,
even if the violence is not immediate.
- Define
Hate Speech as a Category of Harmful Speech
- Like
libel, fraud, and threats, hate speech should be treated as a category of
unprotected speech. Targeted language designed to provoke hostility
against groups based on race, religion, gender, or identity should carry
civil or criminal penalties, particularly when linked to violence.
- Hold
Platforms Accountable
- Social
media companies should face clear legal liability for knowingly
amplifying hate speech that results in harm. Their algorithms should be
transparent and subject to oversight, with fines for repeated violations.
- Establish
a Federal Hate Speech Oversight Body
- Just
as the FCC regulates broadcast standards, a federal agency could monitor
and enforce hate speech restrictions, ensuring that enforcement is
consistent and not politically weaponized.
- Educate
on the Difference Between Free Speech and Hate Speech
- Public
education campaigns should emphasize that restricting hate speech is not
suppressing ideas. It is protecting communities from targeted violence.
This would reinforce the democratic purpose of free expression rather
than diminish it.
The Stakes
What goes around comes around. For years, Charlie Kirk and
others like him treated hate as a game, a tactic, a means of building an
audience and consolidating power. They dismissed warnings that words have
consequences, that violence once unleashed cannot be controlled. Now those
consequences are undeniable.
The lesson is stark: a society that tolerates hate speech
under the pretense of “free speech” is not protecting liberty; it is
undermining it. True freedom requires boundaries that protect human dignity and
civic peace.
If America is to remain a democracy, we must draw this line
clearly. Hate speech is not free. It is costly, and the bill is always paid in
blood.
William James Spriggs
No comments:
Post a Comment