Hate Speech- a Consequence of Free Speech

So FF is at it again, less than 24 hours after his last posting. This time his initial posting was:

"If you can be detained and subjected to threats on your life upon release for stating your opinion, you are not living in a democracy."

He followed it up by the secondary comment of:

"Important exception: hate speech isn't free speech"

The first of these statements is mostly true. Whether you are stating "I like rap" or "I'm an atheist" or "I'm an anarchist" these are your opinions and you have the right to state them without fear of persecution. I don't think this ideal is guaranteed by living in a democracy (all governments are flawed), but I believe it is generally better practiced within democratic systems.


The second statement is completely illogical. By "important exception" could FF really be implying that it is acceptable to detain and threaten a person for hate speech? The presence of hate speech is a consequence of free speech and often times the only way to protect free speech is to defend some of the most vile words. Now, I make a very sharp distinction between hate speech and acts of hatred. You can say whatever you'd like as long as it does not interfere with my natural rights as defined by Locke to life, liberty and property. 

Just because I don't like what you say doesn't mean I have the right to imprison you. When we allow the censorship of so called "hate speech" we get into the huge gray area of defining what hate speech is. Can the Catholic church say that someone who speaks out in favor of legalized abortion is exhibiting hate speech against the life of the unborn fetus and the beliefs of millions of Catholics? Can an atheist then claim a Christian is exhibiting hate speech by saying all atheists are going to hell? Where do you draw the line? And, more importantly, where will the government draw the line and will you wind up on the wrong side of it?


I understand that the vile filth that is published by people and groups such as the KKK is something we wish we could silence. But we must all realize that in the not so distant past Galileo was imprisoned for saying the earth revolved around the sun and the church deemed him a heretic for it. In many countries still today people are imprisoned for speaking out against their government or religion. In these cases the speech is judged as "dangerous" though it puts no one at risk of physical harm except themselves. The problem with government and authority is their tendency to strive for as much power as possible. If we allow for the censorship of "hate speech" we are opening the door to the censorship of anything the government finds distasteful or "dangerous".

As the old adage says, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."