BRATTLEBORO — During the past weeks and months, “free speech” has continued to be a topic in the national conversation - most recently, locally, around panhandling.
The issue of hate speech has also been a local issue, thanks to an incident this past summer, in which threatening words toward Jewish people were graffitied on a sidewalk in town.
Defending free speech via inaction or ignoring hate speech under the guise of defending free speech misses the point. Research shows the United States is one of the very few, if not the only, major Western country that does not consider blatantly hateful speech a crime.
It's my understanding that our laws say there must be an imminent threat of violence as a result of the speech, or an actual act of violence committed as it is spoken, before such speech becomes a criminal offense.
* * *
One of the most egregious and, in my view, mistaken, defenses of “free speech” was in the 2011 Supreme Court decision from a conservative-leaning Court, defending the rights of members of Westboro Baptist Church to hurl homophobic slurs and threats at those attending a burial service for a slain soldier.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the church's picketing at fallen soldiers' funerals “is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible.”
But he said the reaction may not be “punishing the speaker.” In this case the “speaker” was “speakers,” the group enboldened by numbers.
“As a Nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” Roberts said. Debate? Did the family have a chance to argue? Was the soldier being buried given a chance to deny the allegations of the accusers?
It would seem along with the right to own weapons of mass killing power, and the right to die because of the inability to pay for health care, we proudly offer our citizens the right to shout, in voice or public writing, the most heinous hate messages.
Hypocritically, at the same time, in the sports world, free speech becomes anathema.
Colin Kaepernick taking a knee or Serena Williams having her say about what she felt was an issue of equality are lambasted when millions of dollars are part of the picture. Williams's emotional outburst was much-less-destructive speech than what we have heard lately from our president.
* * *
Some ask: “Would those who would call hate speech a crime not want their freedom of speech protected?” My answer is frankly, no. I want to live in a society that would let me know my hate speech is not tolerated.
Society's rules are strong guidelines for behavior, for the teaching of values. If I were to lose myself in hate, I'd hope society would help me find my way back to Self and to love.
It is not about punishment; rather, I think it's about reinforcing the greater good. Restorative justice, for example, is a way of educating the wrongdoer. Ideally, restorative justice opens the eyes, and maybe even heart, of the perpetrator.
Some argue if you let the haters express themselves, it will defuse their acting on those hateful feelings.
This reasoning has been proven faulty time and again, the most recent examples being the Tree of Life Synagogue shootings and postal bombs, which left respective lengthy trails of fully expressed hateful thoughts and feelings.
In the case of the synagogue murders, this perpetrator indeed had a place to share his hateful message: It was all over the internet. Expressing himself didn't make him any saner; it didn't keep him from his horrible crime.
We must confront hate speech as the sickness it is - and do so with the same compassion as we would want for our own mistakes and misguided acts. Not punishment, but to treat hate speech as a manifestation, the tip of the iceberg, for virulent hate is indeed a form of illness.
The family of the pipe-bomb suspect has told the press they hope their relative gets the mental help they have long known he needed. After carrying out his crime, 29 counts, it's very doubtful. At least no one died.
* * *
I recently came across this passage in The Dalai Lama's Big Book of Happiness:
“[I]t is important to make a distinction. If your so-called enemy creates a problem for you, as far as the action is concerned, you may take appropriate countermeasure,” the Dalai Lama wrote. “But as a human being, you can still keep compassion and a sense of concern for their well-being. In fact, if you let their wrongdoing continue without check, ultimately they will suffer. So out of sense of concern of their long-term well-being, take countermeasure to stop their wrongdoing.”
Related to this sentiment is Gandhi's concept of ahimsa: Gandhi is quoted as saying the opposite of hate is not indifference but love....and love does not stand by.....but is an active force.
Is it not perhaps time to look at the laws around hate speech and consider joining most of the civilized Western world? To send a clear message that hate has no home here?
Certainly, example is the best teaching tool; each of us respecting one another and respecting, even celebrating, our differences matters a lot. Nevertheless, our laws should reflect and uphold those values we hold to be self-evident, those values we aspire to.
A first step would be to make hate speech not only a crime but also one that carries a mandatory educational component, reparations when possible, mental-health help, and prohibiting access to guns.
Such a law would create a much better outcome than the alternative that we have seen too many times - the deadly alternative.