Why Banning Hate Speech Is Evil

We often hear demands to ban so-called “hate speech.” Negative remarks about various groups, including women, black people, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, can it is alleged, have a negative effect on members of the group who hear or see the speech. It encourages people to hate them and cements negative stereotypes about them in people’s minds. In addition, hearing or seeing “hate speech” offends the members of the group. Free speech may have some value, but whatever value it has is outweighed by the evil of “hate speech.” Almost any group can claim to be victimized by “hate speech,” except for white heterosexual males and Christians, but “hate speech” applies primarily to members of so-called “protected classes.”

From a libertarian standpoint, the question of banning so-called “hate speech” is a no-brainer. Banning any kind of speech, whether it is good or bad, is incompatible with a free society. As the great Murray Rothbard has taught us, all rights are property rights. Everyone can set the rules for speech on his own property, and no one has the right to control what anyone says on someone else’s property. This includes speech which counts as “offensive.” Of course, we don’t live in a libertarian society, but we should come as close as we can in practice to it. This means following the strictest possible interpretation of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law. . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” “No law” means “no law” and that includes laws against so-called “hate speech.”

Some states have “hate speech” laws on the books. New York is considering a law, already passed in California that requires social media companies to report “hate speech.” This is the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” and has been passed by the State’s Assembly. Here is an account of the measure from Vince Chang, who favors it:

“Under pressure from the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] and other groups, internet platforms have voluntarily adopted measures to regulate hate speech. The ADL described some of the measures that have been taken: Facebook prohibited Holocaust denial content, hired a vice president of civil rights, changed parts of its advertising platform to prohibit various forms of discrimination; expanded policies against content that undermined the legitimacy of the election; and built a team to study and eliminate bias in artificial intelligence. Due to pressure from ADL and other civil rights organizations, Twitter banned linked content, URL links to content outside the platform that promotes violence and hateful conduct. Reddit added its first global hate policy, providing for the removal of subreddits and users that “promote hate based on identity or vulnerability.”

We can see how such laws have a chilling effect on speech if we look at bans on so-called “hate speech” in foreign countries where they are already in operation. I want to focus especially on the Scottish Hate Speech Act.

Let’s first look at an official summary of the Scottish act, from the Scottish parliament site:

“Hate crime is the phrase used to describe behaviour which is both criminal and based on prejudice.

There are already laws in place to protect certain groups from hate crime.

This Bill aims to do three things. It updates these existing laws and pulls most of these laws into one Bill. It also adds to the groups currently specifically protected by hate crime laws.

Criminal courts can generally take into account any prejudice when sentencing a person. Also, people are protected from hate crime through specific laws that apply.

People are currently protected by specific laws on the basis of:

disabilityrace (and related characteristics)religionsexual orientationtransgender identity

This Bill adds age to that list and allows sex to be added at a later date.

The Bill creates a new crime of stirring up hatred against any of the protected groups covered by the Bill.”

The bill was enacted in 2021 and came into force on April 1, 2024,

The supporters of this Act want to create a community that is united in supporting “diversity.” Do you see the contradiction? If you oppose what these people call “diversity,” then you are not part of the united community. In other words, only those who accept what we say are free and have rights. As George Orwell said in 1984, “Freedom is Slavery.” Let’s look at what they say in their own words:

“Scotland’s diversity is its strength; and all communities are valued and their contribution welcomed. Hate crime and prejudice threaten community cohesion and have a corrosive impact on Scotland’s communities as well as broader society. Hate crime and prejudice is never acceptable and the Scottish Government is committed to tackling it. This legislation provides an essential element of the Scottish Government’s ambitious programme of work to tackle hate crime and build community cohesion. Anyone who has experienced or witnessed a hate crime is encouraged to report it to the police or to one of the third-party reporting centres that are in place across Scotland. A cohesive society is one with a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities; a society in which the diversity of people’s backgrounds, beliefs and circumstances are appreciated and valued, and similar life opportunities are available to all. It is through this lens that the Scottish Government has considered the recommendations from Lord Bracadale’s ‘Independent Review of Hate Crime Legislation in Scotland’ in order to inform the modernisation and reform of hate crime legislation in Scotland.

One of the most aggressive groups in trying to silence others for has speech consists of so-called” trans” people. If you don’t agree with them that you can become a man or woman just by “identifying” yourself as one, you can be prosecuted. This is the “democratic community” in action. The prosecutions are by no means confined to religious and political conservatives. Leftwing “gender critical” feminists, who think that a woman is a woman, have been prosecuted. Jonathan Turley tells us what happened to one of them in 2021:

“There is a free speech fight brewing in Scotland where a prominent feminist, Marion Millar, 50, has been charged with the crime of “malicious communication” due to tweets criticizing gender self-identification. We have previously discussed how feminists are being accused of hate speech and discrimination in these debates. Indeed, Millar is accused of being a “terf” (a trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by critics due to her opposition to allowing males to declare themselves to be females. She could now face two years in jail.

What is particularly concerning in this case is that Millar was not told which of her tweets were deemed “malicious.” Millar has thousands of tweets and was told that the charge is based on tweets between 2019 and 2020. She was simply ordered to the police station and told that social workers would be sent to care for her young twin boys, who are autistic. After she emerged from the station, she quoted the novelist Salman Rushdie: “Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn’t exist in any declaration I have ever read.”

There are believed to be six tweets that were cited in the complaint, including pictures of the green, white and purple suffragette ribbons tied around trees to support Millar’s cause. The accuser reportedly said that the ribbons looked like nooses and were therefore threats. How ridiculous can you get?

Fortunately, this particular story has a happy ending, at least relatively so. As The Guardian reports, “Scottish prosecutors have discontinued the case against a woman charged with posting allegedly homophobic and transphobic content online. On Thursday morning, the Crown Office confirmed it had dropped proceedings against Marion Millar, a vocal opponent of the Scottish government’s plans for transgender law reform, before a scheduled hearing next Monday and subject to a review with the alleged victims. Millar, an accountant from Airdrie, had yet to plead, but her defence team, which included SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, was planning to challenge the prosecution on human rights grounds.” The next person might not be so “lucky.”

Let’s do everything we can to oppose the bigots who want to censor us and force us to adopt their insane opinions!