Hate Speech: Criminalize And Ban It Or Tolerate It Under The First Amendment?

Hate Speech: Criminalize And Ban It Or Tolerate It Under The First Amendment?
Shulie Madnick

Op-Ed Argument Paper

Borat's, AKA, Sascha Baron Cohen's incredulously provocative yet absurdly hilarious movies make political statements about bigotry and racism. Baron-Cohen also uses his social media platforms to call on Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg to ban hate speech and calls Zuckerberg out for using hate speech and misinformation for profit. Sascha Baron Cohen's social and political activism is a part of a broader raging debate, particularly in the United States, about banning hate speech and misinformation on social media and the First Amendment. In recent discussions about hate speech and misinformation on social media, a controversial issue has been whether to ban Neo-Nazi and white supremacists on and off social media. On the one hand, some argue that banning free speech is fascism. From this perspective, hate speech falls under the first amendment. On the other hand, however, others argue that Neo-Nazis and other hate groups incite violence and, given the opportunity, will kill and injure innocent citizens, as we witnessed in Charlottesville. My view is that racial supremacy is fundamentally criminal and should be a punishable crime; therefore, those who subscribe to it cannot enjoy the rights under the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. However, I concede that the first amendment is woven into our society and democracy and that civil discourse is critical as a checks and balances mechanism in any democracy. I still maintain that there is no room in our society to amplify voices and ideologies that believe in racist doctrine.

In "How the resurgence of white supremacy in the U.S. sparked a war over free speech," Alex Blasdel extensively examines the opposing views within the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). This very organization upholds the right to freedom of speech as its highest core value. The banning of hate speech debate reached a new pinnacle when voices within the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), the same organization that protects members of the KKK freedom of speech, started questioning the organization's defense of hate speech in the U.S. courts. After Trump's election and the rampant resurfacing of white supremacy from beneath the shadows, on the one hand, the ACLU was suing the Trump administration for the Muslim ban and, on the other hand, defending the rights of free speech of the MAGA hate groups and individuals who support the ban. Within the ACLU and outside of it, the tensions between the camps reached new heights when Neo-Nazi group members injured nineteen and killed Heather Heyer with a car during a Neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017. Blaming fingers were pointed at the ACLU after this tragic loss of human life and the injuries that innocent people suffered. The ACLU took the city of Charlottesville to court, claiming the city is violating the white nationalists' "freedom of speech and public assembly" (Blasdel) when the city attempted to relocate the rally to a safer venue outside the city. Blasdel further writes: "But the rise of the far-right has given new weight to longstanding questions about the wisdom of the ACLU's approach to free speech – and, by extension, America's. Critics say the ACLU's insistence on defending some extremist speech impedes the long fight for civil rights, hobbling the pursuit of social and political equality."

The debate within the ACLU mirrors the widespread, intensely heated debate about banning hate speech within the United States. Today, social media is the main venue where hate groups recruit, manipulate, brainwash, groom, and remotely operate domestic and international terrorist cells faster, more efficiently, and in vast numbers. Hence, the ADL's, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, and The (Martin Luther) King Center applied pressure on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms to ban hate speech. In 2019. In an address at Georgetown University, Zuckerberg vehemently defended Facebook's obligation to defend freedom of speech and, by extension, hate speech and misinformation. Zuckerberg positioned himself and Facebook as the protagonist to China's antagonistic censorship and control of the media. Zuckerberg further invoked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's name, saying that "MLK (also) faced from disinformation campaigns launched by politicians" ((Kang and Isaac). To which Bernice King, one of MLK's daughters, swiftly and eloquently responded in a tweet: "I heard # MarkZuckerberg's 'free expression' speech, in which he referenced my father. I'd like to help Facebook better understand the challenges #MLK faced from disinformation campaigns launched by politicians. These campaigns created an atmosphere for his assassination" (Kang and Isaac), along with a devastating yet iconic photo from her father's assassination.

In an op-ed "America Doesn't Need 'Hate Speech' Laws," Jarrett Stepman, a contributor to The Daily Signal, comes to Zuckenberg's defense. It was also an op-ed against an op-ed in favor of hate-speech laws written by Richard Stengel, a former editor at Time magazine and President Obama's State Department's undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs. Weaved with some cliched patriotic rhetoric, Stepman writes: "Yes, the First Amendment is an "outlier," and for that, we should be incredibly thankful as Americans. It is undoubtedly a cornerstone of American exceptionalism." Stepman parrots Zuckenberg's China reference and brings up Europe's anti-hate laws. He then rambles on with a philosophical "The First Amendment— really, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press more broadly—is necessary not to promote "fairness," but to help us find the truth." Stepman seems far removed and wholly detached from the reality and imminent dangers of hate speech and misinformation.

Since many opposing hate speech laws bring up hate speech laws in Europe, it's only appropriate to examine Germany's stance on hate-speech legislation and reaction to extremism in the United States and the administration's mishandling of it. In a reaction to Charlottesville's events and Trump's mismanagement of the situation, Angela Merkel was decisive in her response: "It's racist, far-right violence, and that requires determined and forceful resistance no matter where in the world it appears" (Sauerbrey). The irony of Germany preaching the United States didn't escape Sauerbrey. However, she further writes: "In Germany, the very presence of neo-Nazis openly marching through a city bearing swastika-emblazoned flags, as in Charlottesville, is unthinkable." Sauerbrey further articulates: "In Germany, the very presence of neo-Nazis openly marching through a city bearing swastika-emblazoned flags, as in Charlottesville, is unthinkable. Unlike the United States, Germany places strict limits on speech and expression regarding right-wing extremism. It is illegal to produce, distribute or display symbols of the Nazi era — swastikas, the Hitler salute, along with many symbols that neo-Nazis have developed as proxies to get around the initial law. Holocaust denial is also illegal. The law goes further. There is the legal concept of "Volksverhetzung," the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion, or anybody who tries to rouse hatred or promotes violence against such a group or an individual, could face a sentence of up to five years in prison." So why is it in the United States we are behind?

 Hate speech is not only a theoretical manifesto. At its core, it embodies a suppressive and violent agenda against minority groups, as we witnessed during Charlottesville, Orlando, and WWII. Immediately after WWII, many countries enacted hate-speech laws, while the United States didn't. It's anti-Semitic groups and Anti- Muslim, Anti-Black, and anti-LGBTQ hate speech should be banned. It's unconscionable, unethical, illegal, and reprehensible that "The rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at military funerals with placards that say "God Hates Fags” and "Pray for More Dead Soldiers" have been upheld" (Blasdel). The Westboro Baptist Church calling for death is no different than banned, radicalized Muslim individuals and groups calling for the death of America in the name of G-D, and should be criminalized as a domestic terror group. The risk is inordinate today on the web, where the reach of these hate groups across the globe is exponentially greater. As a society and humanity, we cannot afford to pay that price of either one or 6,000,000 innocent lives ever again. If we learn anything from the past and wish for history not to repeat itself, we need to break the cyclical pattern and criminalize and ban hate speech. As the Jewish proverb goes, "Whoever saves one soul is as if he had saved an entire world."

Works Cited 

Blasdel, Alex. “How the resurgence of white supremacy in the US sparked a war over free

speech. The Guardian, May 31, 2018, ”https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/31/ how-the-resurgence-of-white-supremacy-in-the-us-sparked-a-war-over-free-speech-aclu- charlottesville.”

Dwoskin, Elizabeth. "Mark Zuckerberg's reversal on Holocaust denial is a 180-degree turn." Washington Post, 12 Oct. 2020. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https:// link.gale.com/apps/doc/A638170121/OVIC?u=viva2_nvcc&sid=OVIC&xid=c4e3e960. Accessed 25 Nov. 2020.

"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Delivers Address on Free Speech." 17 Oct. 2019. Issues & Controversies, icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=19433. Accessed 24 Nov. 2020. Kang, Cecilia, and Mike Isaac. “Defiant Zuckerberg Says Facebook Won't Police Political

Speech.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/

2019/10/17/business/zuckerberg-facebook-free-speech.html.

Levendosky, Charles. "Internet Hate Speech Should Not Be Restricted." Hate Groups, edited by

Mary E. Williams, Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010224256/OVIC? u=viva2_nvcc&sid=OVIC&xid=f3b0ff60. Accessed 25 Nov. 2020.

Ross, Brooke. "Should the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech? Forty years after the courts upheld neo-Nazis' First Amendment rights, is it time to reconsider which kinds of speech deserve

constitutional protection?" New York Times Upfront, vol. 150, no. 11, 2 Apr. 2018, p. 16+.

 Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A536388208/ OVIC?

u=viva23470&sid=OVIC&xid=13d81db4. Accessed 25 Nov. 2020.

Sauerbrey, Anna. "How Germany Deals With Neo-Nazis." New York Times, 23 Aug. 2017, p.

A19(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A501457810/

OVIC?u=viva23470&sid=OVIC&xid=6acca9ea. Accessed 25 Nov. 2020.

Stepman, Jarrett. "Former Time Magazine Editor Is Wrong. America Doesn't Need 'Hate Speech' Laws." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2020. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EZJIVQ073342703/OVIC? u=viva2_nvcc&sid=OVIC&xid=762cbec2. Accessed 25 Nov. 2020. Originally published as "Former Time Magazine Editor Is Wrong. America Doesn't Need 'Hate Speech' Laws," The Daily Signal, 31 Oct. 2019.