On the banning of hate speech

There is an adage in English that I am sure most of you know. It goes like this, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The intention of this is to help teach children to refrain from physical violence after being taunted or in some other way angered. It is reported to have first appeared in 1862, in a book published by the African Methodist Episcopalian Church. This occurred, of course, due to the horrible racism that was present, and is still present today in many parts of our society. But that is not why I am writing this. What I want to talk about is hate speech. This was prompted by a conversation that I had with someone today, who, like many others do, believes that hate speech should be banned, and while I agree with all of them sentimentally, I find this an inherently problematic view to take. I hope to make why I believe this evident in this piece.

I think that we can all agree that hate speech is abhorrent. Hate speech, according to the American Bar Association, is defined as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should it be discouraged? Yes! Absolutely, one-hundred percent, unequivocally, yes! However, by looking at this definition, I hope that you can see some of the problems that occur when we talk about banning hate speech.

Now, there are a few things to clear up when we are talking about hate speech. First, speech that is directed towards an individual, that is meant to or likely to provoke them, is not hate speech. That is speech that is inciting violence, and it is illegal. This limitation on freedom of speech was decided in 1942 by the Supreme Court, and it is known as the Fighting Words Doctrine. People do have to right to say things that the listener disagrees with and that they find offensive and hateful. This is because of several reasons, which I will be covering shortly.

Limitations on freedom of speech is not limited to the Fighting Words Doctrine, I might add. There are also limitations to speech for speech that is not directed at an individual, but that is conductive to creating disorder, violence, or harm to a person or a group of people. The classic example of this is yelling “FIRE!” in a movie theater. People are likely to get hurt as a result of this speech, and therefore, it is limited. This also applies to a person instructing others to in any way harm another individual, or a group of people.

Here, we see the distinction starting to occur. I am sure you have all heard the phrase, “actions speak louder than words?” Well, it is true—especially here. Saying a racial or sexist epithet, or some other sort of derogatory statement is reprehensible. It is disgusting. But, the question is this: does that do tangible harm? Remember, we are not talking about fighting words, we are talking about more general hate speech. Since the speech in this case is not inciting violence or other illegal activity, it must be allowed. For this, I will look to JS Mill, a political theorist who wrote extensively on the topic of liberty.

“If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

The reason for this line of thinking is simple, and it is derived from a point that Mill makes earlier, which is that the sole reason that government should interfere with the lives of individuals in a society (by this, I mean limit their liberties), is for self-protection of either the individual, another individual, a group of people, or the society as a whole. Civil liberties are a fundamental right of all people, which is why they should not be infringed upon unless absolutely necessary. Being under common law, precedent is key. The limitation of hate speech could later be used to justify the banning of other forms of speech. I would like to turn back to Mill though.

In addition to the argument about restricting liberties, there is also the argument that is made by Mill that one of the most important things that exists in the dialogue that society has about ideas and opinions. In this, there is no such thing as an opinion or belief that is not valuable. Even the most horrible of beliefs have value, at the very least, in being an opportunity to teach, and to correct an opinion; or to act as a check to the tyranny that exists when thoughts and ideas cannot be questioned, regardless of how good they may appear to be.

Having covered those points in the banning of hate speech, I would next like to move on to the practicality of banning it, or rather, problems that will be had with legislating this proposed ban. One of two scenarios will occur.

The first is the scenario in which the legislation around the banning of hate speech is extremely specific. In this scenario, there are extremely specific phrases and words that are banned. This is problematic for two reasons. First, there is the issue of it not being comprehensive enough. In this scenario, it is likely that certain aspects of hate speech will be looked over, or forgotten. In addition, it is likely that those who use hate speech will adapt to the changes, and in turn, new phrases will become hateful. In this sense, like technology, hate speech will outpace the law. There is also the issue here of the banning specific phrases and words defining what constitutes hate and hate speech. Say that, for example, many phrases and words that are derogatory to blacks, Latinos, and women are banned. This still leaves open hate directed at Asians, Caucasians, Men, people with disabilities, etc. Essentially, by banning hate speech in this way, we are implicitly condoning the forms of hate speech that is not being expressly banned. Or, if it is not condoning those forms of hate speech, it is most certainly a microcosm that is allowed continued existence and flourishing. This surely is not the answer.

The second scenario is one in which the legislation around the banning of hate speech is extremely vague. In this scenario, “hate speech” is banned. This is problematic mostly because of how open to interpretation this statute would be, due to how vague it would be. In this scenario, if someone exclaimed, “I hate Mexicans!” for example, would that be hate speech? Would “Mexicans are bad! They are stealing our jobs!” be hate speech? Would “I don't like black people,” be considered hate speech? How about, “God, this old person is so fucking slow. I hate them so much.” ?  I think we can generally agree that these are awful things to say, but are they hate speech? Should people be explicitly banned from saying these things? Another thing to consider. Say that you have a person who arrested for hate speech, and the situation is brought to court. Now, say that this area is one that is racist, and most of the people on the jury agree with the person who is being charged with hate speech. In this case, the chances the person charged will be found guilty is small. This is called jury nullification, and it was used in the South to let people guilty of lynching walk free. Of course, if most people in the area shared a general sentiment like that, there is also the possibility that a person saying hate speech would not be arrested in the first place, because the definition under the law would be vague enough that the police officer would have enough leeway to say that in fact an incident of hate speech did not occur. This also happened in the South during the days of slavery.

These are some of the reasons why the banning of hate speech is problematic. While we do need to do everything as individuals, and as a society within our power to discourage hate speech, and hate in general, in any form in which it may manifest itself, we must always bare in mind civil liberties. Essentially, we need to combine the libertarian and the communitarian perspectives. We need to at a governmental level allow for the freedom on speech that everyone is entitled to for being a member of society, while at the same time at a social level work to eradicate the use of hate speech from our society.

Is all violence secular violence?

Cananaugh’s writing in The Anatomy of Myth focuses on debunking—or rather countering—the three main arguments as to why religion causes violence4 (those being that it is absolutist, divisive, and it is insufficiently rational). One of the main arguments that he raises against the different theories of religion causing violence is that the distinction is not clear enough between religious violence and secular violence. This is a valid criticism, assuming that there is a difference. I contend that there is no difference between religious and secular violence. I argue that there is only secular violence, and it is all rooted in power and security.

We must first look at why violence occurs. I will start with the international level, and the largest form of violence—war. According to offensive realism, war occurs because states are always trying to increase their security. However, because international affairs is a zero-sum game, they can only achieve security by taking it from others. This is why war occurs over territory. Territory acquisition increases the power of a state, and therefore, its security. This logic also applies to war over resources—especially important resources such as Rare Earth Elements, which are used in the manufacturing of advanced weaponry. Now, I believe that these would be considered acts of secular violence, but what about holy war? Well, if you apply the same logic of the acquisition of land, it would seem that they are about power. It could also be that holy wars are about the power of the religion as a whole. By waging a holy war, by winning one, the religion is asserting its religious authority over others, and over the people it already has under its control. So, while there is a religious justification, holy wars (such as Crusades or Jihad) are actually secular wars for power.

Take, for example, the Inquisition. Some might say that the violence conducted by the Inquisition was without a secular cause—that it was a case of pure, unadulterated religious violence. I am not one of those people. Put yourself in the shoes of the Catholic Church, for a moment. Right now, you have dominion over all of Christendom (to some extent). Reading is not widespread and religious diversity is low. The best way to maintain power is to minimize free thought. If people think freely, then they can rebel against you. People who held heretical beliefs, therefore, must be removed so that your power will remain. So in that sense, the Inquisition (and all religious discrimination by a majority group against minority groups) are done for the sake of power.

Let us now turn our attention to religious terrorism—specifically that of radical Islamism. Now, one could say that they are fighting a war against “the infidel.” One could argue that terrorism by groups such as al Qaeda and Hamas is religious in nature—but I do not. If you look at the places where these terrorist groups originated—Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan—they are all places that are still going through the process of colonialization. This is in itself a time marked by instability—without the added support of authoritarian regimes by Western powers—namely the United States. So while they may use religion as a justification, as a rationalization for their acts of violence, these terrorist groups are really acting as guerillas. They are fighting against oppression for the power of self-determination that has been denied to them by the West.

I Am Tired (Of WASPs)

I am tired.

I am fucking tired.

I am tired of living in a constant state of war. We are in a war on drugs—but it’s not really a war against drugs. It’s a war against poor people. It’s a war against minorities. It’s a war against blacks. And you know what? I’m tired of it. I’m tired of upper-class white men using it as a pretense to incarcerate the poor. I know that we poor people are lazy and selfish—as you have told us time and again—but why don’t you just come out and say that you want to imprison us?

I am tired of living in a society that is institutionally racist. A society, run by rich, white racists, who think that people who are not white are inferior. They think that “non-white” people are lazy, and that they are violent. They think they are not worthy of the same rights that are afforded to normal people. It is this mentality that allows for black churches to be burned, for black men and women to be beaten by the police—and far too often, killed. Lynching is not a bygone practice, it is still done all over America by those people who are supposed to be defending us. And you know what? I am tired of it. I am tired of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants—of WASPs—running every aspect of my life, and I am tired of being told that being one is what I should strive for. I don’t want to be like them.

It is these same rich, white men who wage war against women, time and time again. They tell them what they can wear, and how they must care—care for the life that is clearly and utterly present, in a small cluster of cells in their body. They say that abortion is a sin, and then, when the child is born, call it and the parents freeloaders for wanting support. I am tired of these same rich, white men legislating a women’s body.


I am tired of the war against terror. We send our brothers and our sisters, our sons and our daughters, our neighbors and our friends—we send them all overseas to fight against people who don’t know we exist. We send them to countries to oppress, to suppress and to support dictatorships that support our strategic interests. We send our troops to fight terrorism, while supporting the House of Saud, the lead sponsor of it. Yet, we wonder why so many people are angry with us. And when our soldiers return home, they are not justly rewarded for their sacrifice. We don’t care about their health, nor their well-being. We would rather spend our money fueling the military-industrial complex than paying for the healthcare of our veterans. I am tired of it.


I am tired of the rich white men who run our country. I am tired of reactionaries. I am tired of feeling ashamed for being a white man. I am tired. I am so very fucking tired of it all.

The World is Remarkable

I was on the trampoline with two kids that I was watching for some friends today, and I fully realized what Einstein was talking about with spacetime, and how gravity works. It hit me that some of the most remarkable things in this life are surprisingly simple. A trampoline tells us the secrets of space time. A ramp and a ball tell us laws of motion. An arrow fired from a bow, or a bullet from a gun tell us of gravity and aerodynamics.

The simple, everyday things in this world that we all take for granted are spectacular. As some of you sit and watch a game of baseball, and a pitch is given, and hit, you sitting in your home hear the crack of the bat before someone sitting in the high grandstands. That is amazing.

The light that everyone sees everyday is moving faster than anything can. It moves at the speed-limit of the universe, light speed. At this speed, time does not exist...it does not apply to the photons that are moving this fast. What this means is that a photon could travel from the Big Bang 13 billion years ago, and it would not notice the difference between that passage of time and the time it takes to read this sentence.

The world is full of remarkable things, things that I realized today we should pay more attention to. Not just me, but you too.

Blood is Blood is Blood

Blood is blood is blood.

It doesn't matter whose blood it is,

Blood is blood is blood.

It doesn't matter if your a man or a woman.

Blood is blood is blood.

It doesn't matter if your gay or straight.

Blood is blood is blood.

It doesn't matter if you don't come from the same country,

Or if you come from the same continent.

Blood is blood is blood.

It doesn't matter if you speak the same language,

Or if you pray to different gods,

Blood is blood is blood.

It doesn't matter if your skin is colored different,

Or if your hair or your eyes.

Blood is blood is blood.

It doesn't matter if you eat meat or not,

Or if you like rock or jazz.

Blood is blood is blood.

It doesn't matter what your differences are with others, 

Shedding blood is an act of violence,

It is unnatural.

It is wrong.

What is natural though is love.

Compassion, caring for others. 

That is natural.

That is good.

Love is hugging friend,

It is kissing a lover,

Sleeping with them.

Love is holding a suckling babe close,

Feeding it, keeping it safe.

Love is how you treat your mother and sister and brother. 

It is how you treat your neighbors and teachers and pets.

Love is natural.

It is what we all do and express.

Violence is not natural.

It is a crime, and no matter what justification you may have,

Blood is blood is blood.

There is a Problem

There is a problem in this country. A problem that is so deeply entrenched that it will be difficult if not impossible to weed out. This problem is selfishness.

This problem is not a new one, in fact it is an old one. This problem has existed since the birth of our nation all of those years ago. It has existed since we decided to dump tea in the Boston Harbor. It has existed since we first settled at Plymouth Rock. But back then it wasn't a problem. Back then, it was a force for good.

Manifest Destiny is what we called this problem then. It is how we justified the relocation of the people who lived here before we came by boat from Europe. Savages, we called them. This is our land by right. And so we made them move, or we slaughtered them like one would pigs being primed to become bacon. The Trail of Tears and the Massacre at Wounded Knee. Through it all, they proved more civilized than we.

Like the Native Americans, we used this problem of ours to justify the subjection of many other peoples. It is how we were able to enslave millions of Nigerians and Liberians, of Gabonese and Congolese. It is how we were able to treat human beings as less than dogs, and how we were able to turn water cannons powerful enough to strip away skin on innocent children.

Now, selfishness is rearing its ugly head again, for it is a monster that can never truly be killed. Look at how we treat immigrants. Look at the hardworking Mexicans, Cubans, and other Latinos who are doing our dirty work. They are taking the jobs that we don't want to work, for wages that we would never accept, and causing us no trouble. Yet we see them as thieves, coming to steal jobs for Americans. We fight them at every turn, and yet, the only reason that they are even in the United States is because we destroyed their economies through our selfish, protectionist trade policies.

It is selfishness that allows for Americans to sit in their homes, using up more than their fair share of oil and gas and water while there are people in other parts of the world that have none of those things. It is selfishness that Americans are projecting when they buy products made by children in sweatshops in China. It is selfishness that they are showing when they support governments in the Middle East that openly suppress women and anyhow who opposes them.

There is a problem in this country, and that problem is selfishness. There is only one way to fix that problem, and that is through education.

Education is the silver bullet. It can battle poverty and unemployment. It can advance technology and the arts. It even helps the damned economy.

Republicans say it is a waste of time. It is a waste of time and money and it has failed to work thus far. And to that I say, sit down. The problem is not that education doesn't work, it is that it is not being funded nearly well enough. Education is what we should be spending the most on in this country. We should follow in the example of our Scandinavian Cousins, and make being a teacher the most desirable position there is. Teachers should be making six-figure salaries. Yes, it will be expensive and it should be expensive. So is the military, which we spend over half our money on, and its soul goal is keeping the US the best through force. Its selfish. We need a change.