![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hate speech
Apr. 16th, 2010 12:56 pmI am in favor of banning hate speech. I know my position on this isn't popular, but I believe the consequences of allowing it to be uttered are worse than any likely consequences of stopping it.
First of all, hate speech is not discourse. It only looks like discourse because they are both forms of human linguistic expression. Discourse is a flow of ideas and a distillation of the human condition, the cultural lifeblood. Hate speech is to discourse what theft is to commerce: a poisonous disruption of the patterns and flow.
Secondly, I do not believe there is a slippery slope. There is no legitimate idea which can *only* take the form of a slur, insult, or mean-spirited joke. Conversely, there is little substantive content to any utterance of hate speech. Hate speech primarily binds those who hate or brutalize and issues an implied threat to an already traumatized community, a reminder of past abuses and the specter of future abuse. Banning threats and slurs does not logically imply the future banning of legitimate discourse.
Some might argue that leeway should be made for satire, but honestly, I am not really a fan of satire at this point either, because it can be just as triggering as that which it supposedly sends up. If it has the same effect on the traumatized community, in what way is it better?
Lastly, I find myself having less and less sympathy with anyone who feels constrained when asked to refrain from making hateful utterance. The amount of consideration being requested is tiny compared to the amount of consideration people of traumatized minority communities feel every day in dealing with the majority. It is not too much to ask that people use the brain in their heads to find some other non-hurtful way to say what has to be said.
First of all, hate speech is not discourse. It only looks like discourse because they are both forms of human linguistic expression. Discourse is a flow of ideas and a distillation of the human condition, the cultural lifeblood. Hate speech is to discourse what theft is to commerce: a poisonous disruption of the patterns and flow.
Secondly, I do not believe there is a slippery slope. There is no legitimate idea which can *only* take the form of a slur, insult, or mean-spirited joke. Conversely, there is little substantive content to any utterance of hate speech. Hate speech primarily binds those who hate or brutalize and issues an implied threat to an already traumatized community, a reminder of past abuses and the specter of future abuse. Banning threats and slurs does not logically imply the future banning of legitimate discourse.
Some might argue that leeway should be made for satire, but honestly, I am not really a fan of satire at this point either, because it can be just as triggering as that which it supposedly sends up. If it has the same effect on the traumatized community, in what way is it better?
Lastly, I find myself having less and less sympathy with anyone who feels constrained when asked to refrain from making hateful utterance. The amount of consideration being requested is tiny compared to the amount of consideration people of traumatized minority communities feel every day in dealing with the majority. It is not too much to ask that people use the brain in their heads to find some other non-hurtful way to say what has to be said.
