Introduction

Yes, hate speech, barring encouragement to physically harm others, is free speech. Otherwise, why have a First Amendment at all?

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire French Historian and Philosopher, and ardent defender of freedom of speech, and religion, 1694-1778. That justifiably famous saying should be the gold standard.

Hate speech is speech you hate, or perhaps just disagree with. The solution is not to either shout it down or ban it should you have the power. The best response is to show the speaker up as a fool, to destroy the speaker’s argument. That will gain you converts. Shouting down or banning will gain the speech and the speaker you hate followers.

Does anybody remember the phrase, Banned in Boston? Once puritanical, in Boston the city officials took it upon themselves to ban anything that they found to be salacious, inappropriate, or offensive. Until well past the middle of the 20th Century, the “Banned in Boston” label was slapped on anything the “officials” did not want seen or heard. And the very people who were selling those “unsavory” books and movies used the tag Banned in Boston to boost sales. And it worked. 

The difference is that today’s Puritans, those who also want to squelch speech they disagree with, are not only sending a warning, they are working to disallow certain speech in the first place. Today’s anti-free speech mobs are not content with merely warning about speech they dislike; they want to ban it altogether. No word, no picture they dislike should ever see the light of day. Let’s remember it was the early Puritans who brought us the Salem Witch trials. Outrageous and false accusations led to ruined--and ended--lives in those times. Today’s Puritans, once again trotting out false accusations and outrageous claims, use economic boycotts and mob violence to block invited speakers, intimidate politicians and rout dissenters on social media. Ending, by design, with ruined lives and careers whenever today’s Puritans can pull that off.

Let’s take a look at what is in the First Amendment:

“Amendment I

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.”

As I count, there are five parts to this amendment. 1. Against establishing a state religion. 2. Freedom of speech. 3. Freedom of the press. 4. Right to peaceably assemble and 5. Right to petition government to redress grievances. We seem to take 1, 3, 4 and 5 quite seriously. Even to the point where a case where a cross on public property went to the Supreme Court as a potential violation of the establishment clause, no. 1. And some of the Justices actually thought it was. Crosses. Like in public cemeteries. Freedom of the press is much in the news, and is vigorously defended. And looking at the many and large protests, we see that 4 and 5 are broadly interpreted and defended as well. 

So, what’s up with the attack on freedom of speech? A. This attack is part of the dangerous “The ends justify the means” thinking. In this case, this would mean, “It is wrong to deny free speech to others, the same free speech that I value and defend for myself, but the wrong is justified if I can eliminate hateful utterances in others.” That eliminates rational, independent thinking about right and wrong, and makes whoever has the might automatically right. Many of the same people who defend the argument that all cultures are equal, including ones that promote practices like female genital mutilation, are saying that differences of opinion on subjects...