Column Face-off:
n light of the recent act of terrorism resulting in the death of a
Hate Speech is not free speech
By Lola akinlade
If you have a white hood, go ahead and wear it — but not on public
grounds. If you have a cross that you want to burn, go ahead and burn it
— but not on public grounds. If you have a Nazi flag, go ahead and wave
it — but not on public grounds.
There is a strong distinction between private and public expression.
Hate speech should be a private matter. The Constitution protects free
speech, no matter how hateful, but there is a fine line between hate
speech against a political party and hate speech historically associated
with racism and domestic terrorism. It should not all simply be protected
under free speech.
One of the purposes of laws is to protect people and to make people
feel safe; hate speech is a threat. Waving a Nazi flag is a symbol of
pride for a genocide that killed more than six million Jews. “Repping” a
white hood and burning the cross have historically been used to terrorize
millions of blacks around America. A white hood is a threat, burning
the cross is a threat, and the nazi flag is a threat. And just like guns are
viewed as threats and are illegal to carry openly in public in most cir-
cumstances, historical symbols of hatred should be viewed in the same
light.
Taking advantage of free speech as a way to intimidate others should
not be permissible. Free speech should be used to express injustices or
to fight for something one truly believes in. Free speech should not be
exploited and used as a means to emotionally intimidate and harm the
masses. Burning a cross outside of a historically black church is a form
of terrorism, and it is perplexing to me that people fight for people’s right
to do so.
Opinion
I counter-protester in Charlottesville, Virginia, which initially
began as a protest led by a group of white supremacists and
Neo-Nazis, we were inspired to write face-off columns about the
freedom of speech vs. the freedom of hate. While neither of us
support hate or the actions that are associated with it, we have differ-
ing opinions on what should be able to be publicly expressed.
For people arguing that it goes both ways — it doesn’t. Wearing a
black armband as a symbol of peace and opposition against the Vietnam
war is not threatening anyone. There is no violence insinuated with that
symbol. It is incomparable. That is free speech. Everyone is entitled to
their own opinion (go ahead and be a neo-Nazi and white supremacist!),
but if a symbol historically represents genocide or the lynching of mil-
lions of African Americans, there should not be public demonstrations of
that symbol. Publicly portraying symbols that take pride in violence is
outright hostile and should not be protected under the First Amendment.
Can you really tell a young black man that the men marching with
burning crosses and white hoods are no threat to him when 50 years ago,
those same men would have been the ones tying him up to a tree? I truly
believe that it is people’s right to hate if they want (don’t get it twisted!),
but it should not be their right to publicly display that hatred as a way to
intimidate others, specifically if that hate is associated with violence.
There are already laws preventing this type of hostile behavior in
school: According to the National Coalition Against Censorship, schools
are required to take action if speech creates a hostile environment as
stated in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. However, these
laws should be carried out into the general public. Hate speech is hostile
— in school and on public grounds.
The Constitution explicitly protects hate speech — there is no debating
that. However, it also explicitly promotes “tranquility” and promotes
the “general welfare” of a nation, as stated in its preamble. Hate speech
directly violates the ideals expressed in the Constitution. Therefore, hate
speech should not be free speech.
26 Drops of Ink
the first amendment
hate speech is free speech
By maria thames
Hate: “[an] intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear,
anger, or sense of injury,” according to Merriam-Webster. Here is what
I absolutely hate: the wage gap, when people use the word “gay” in a
negative connotation, how women are often blamed for assault based on
their clothing or the time of day they went out at, and most of all, being
told that I can’t share or stand up for my opinions. This is where the
freedom of speech and hate collide.
It is imperative that I state I do not encourage or support violence,
harassment, assault, teasing or any type of hate crime whatsoever; I truly
despise everything that is associated with hate itself. It is also imperative
that I state that both my job as a student journalist and this column would
cease to exist without the freedom of speech and similarly, the freedom
of hate.
As the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” At no point does
the amendment define what free speech is and what is appropriate and
what is not, meaning that anything, including hate, is legal. There are, of
course, exceptions that have been carved out over time, including (but
certainly not exclusive to) yelling “fire” in a movie theater or lying under
oath.
Instead of seeing hate in pertinence to the freedom of speech as com-
pletely negative, I try to see it in a positive light. Above, I gave a list
of what I hate. And I really, really do hate those things. With this hate,
under the First Amendment, I am allowed to speak against any injustices
I see related to them.
Almost every day at school, I find myself stopping in the hall to tell
Photos by jenna grayson
Layout by Hannah hutchins
Opinion
someone that the way they used a word wasn’t particularly cool. When
someone attacks a person who identifies as a feminist, I have a (respect-
ful) speech prepared for them. While this does not seem like hate in my
eyes, the people who I speak to, when I correct them or tell them to stop,
may feel personally attacked or hated. If hate was not included in the
freedom of speech, I wouldn’t be able to stand up for what I believe in.
None of us would.
However, I also need to talk about the “hateful” part of hate. There was
some serious hate presented in Charlottesville, Virginia, last month. I by
no means support any of the messages or any actions associated with the
hate that occurred there, yet I do respect the fact that, despite how igno-
rant, offensive and downright wrong those messages were, the people
saying them legally had the right to say them. (To clarify, when speech
includes threats or incitement to violence, the legality of it becomes iffy,
but if it is an opinion or an idea, it is protected under the Constitution
and First Amendment.)
If the freedom of speech is going to be taken away from one group or
one message, it will be taken away from all. If it is taken away from all,
there is no way for us to fight against what we see as morally incorrect.
Looking back at history, without the hatred that colonists had for the
British and their taxes, America and our rights would not exist. Without
the hatred that women had toward not being able to vote, their right, my
right, to suffrage, would not exist. The combination of free speech and
hate, as unlikely as it may seem, can actually be put together to make
something better.
27