Banning hate speech leads to censorship

Ashley Verdugo/ Contributing Writer

Freedom of speech sets apart America as a nation. The foundation of our liberties is found within the First Amendment. We have the right to hate, love, offend, take offense and agree or disagree. But freedom of speech isn’t as popular as it once was.

Forty-four percent of college students say hate speech isn’t protected in the First Amendment — 44 percent of college students are absolutely wrong.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that hate speech is a right through Matal v. Tam, stating in the majority opinion, “…the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.””

On hate speech and why it should or shouldn’t be protected, Javier Naranjo, a junior in finance, doesn’t think free speech gives the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want. He believes that there are limitations.

“You have the right to speak what you want as long as you don’t threaten anyone or put anyone in harm,” Naranjo said.

Naranjo considers hate speech as any kind of speech that shows no love for a person and deems them unworthy. “When you drag someone so low that they feel inhumane, that is hate speech and that should be banned,” he said.

But banning hate speech can cross a legal and moral line that the government shouldn’t be given the authority to touch.

Alberto Garcia, a junior in international business, thinks that banning hate speech could be a possibility, but that it’s more of a societal issue rather than the responsibility of the government.

“Government banning speech becomes complete censorship and it becomes a question on what they think is right and wrong,” Garcia said.

Society is slowly trying to get rid of one form of hate speech through political correctness. However, many conservatives believe this limits freedom of speech.

Naranjo said that it gets too narrow to the point where you have to watch every word you say or you’ll be labeled as some sort of bigot for not using the correct “politically correct” term.

Garcia points out that hate speech is determined by a person’s perspective, but he also said, “My rights end where yours begin.”

A blanket banning hate speech becomes dangerous and infringes on the right of freedom of speech. However, Naranjo believes that certain types of hate speech should be banned.

“When it gets to the extent that you are blatantly calling for someone to die, that is hateful. You don’t need to throw punches in order to attack someone,” he said.

Inciting violence and calling for a group of people to die is beyond hate speech; it crosses a new territory into calling for action to commit an actual crime. A person cannot claim the right to “freedom of speech” in order to endanger someone.

Both Garcia and Naranjo agree that freedom of speech doesn’t cease to exist because of the limitations placed on it. You have a right to disagree and have differing opinions, but blatantly hurting someone isn’t part of it.

If hate speech starts to get banned on a case-by-case basis, we will soon be completely censored. The whole point of a republic is to speak your mind, share your thoughts and be entitled to your opinion. Silencing speech that’s hateful can soon cross a threshold into silencing minorities because their opinion is deemed irrelevant.

 

DISCLAIMER:

The opinions presented within this page do not represent the views of Panther Press Editorial Board. These views are separate from editorials and reflect individual perspectives of contributing writers and/or members of the University community.

 

Photo taken from Flickr.