GUEST COMMENTARY: U.S. alone among Western democracies in protecting hate speech

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 | 2:01 p.m. CDT; updated 7:03 p.m. CDT, Saturday, April 9, 2011

COLUMBIA — An inebriated John Galliano, sitting in a Paris bar, unleashed an anti-semitic rant (“I love Hitler”) that was captured on a cell phone camera and posted on the internet. Within days, the Dior designer was  not only fired from his job but was given a trial date to face criminal charges for his offensive remarks.

In the same week, the U.S. Supreme Court extended First Amendment protection to the homophobic proclamations of a fringe religious group whose founder and members, picketing near a funeral for an American soldier killed in Iraq, held signs stating, among other things, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates Fags” and “You’re Going to Hell.” The Court, in Snyder v. Phelps, barred a suit against the religious group for emotional distress because the demonstrators’ message, though it did cause “emotional distress” to the dead soldier’s family, dealt with “matters of public concern.”


Related Media

Related Articles

The contrast between these cases reflects fundamentally different views about the role of free speech in a democracy. France, hardly an intolerant or autocratic country, imposes criminal fines for racial epithets, Holocaust-denial, anti-immigrant advocacy and other forms of “hate speech.” And the French are not alone. To varying degrees, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada — all liberal democracies — enforce similar laws banning hate speech.

The U.S. is an outlier when it comes to freedom of expression. Although we share other countries’ repugnance for hate speech, particularly the race- and religion-baiting variety, the First Amendment reflects a uniquely strong aversion to government censorship of any kind. As interpreted in Supreme Court decisions going back nearly a century, the First Amendment forbids government suppression of ideas, no matter how vile, deranged or offensive — as long as the speaker doesn’t cross the line separating speech and illegal action (or succeed in inciting others to engage in violent crimes).

Galliano, if he lived in New York, could not be prosecuted for giving vent to his views. (His defenestration from Dior, on the other hand, likely would stand). In New York he would be a free man, though there are certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn and elsewhere that Galliano would be well-advised to avoid (to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart speaking to a Nazi officer in “Casablanca”).

The Constitution’s protection of hateful speakers and their hateful speech is based on considerations that are fundamentally pragmatic. One is the insight that trying to block the spread of an idea is self-defeating because it serves only to give that idea legitimacy — why else would the government wish to discredit it? — and, by making the idea illicit, to increase its potential audience. This hypothesis is supported by the experience of China and other autocratic governments in censoring the Internet.

The First Amendment also reflects the view that the best way to neutralize a bad or dangerous idea is to force it to compete in an open “marketplace of ideas” where its defects and shortcomings will be exposed through debate. For example, blogger critics of Galliano — whose background is Jewish and Gypsy — were quick to skewer him with the observation that his affection for Hitler would have been reciprocated during World War II with a one-way trip to Dachau, Germany. France’s piling on of criminal charges is hardly necessary to discredit Galliano’s views.

Still another consideration embedded in First Amendment cases is the prevention of self-censorship caused by uncertainty about what is and isn’t protected. The Court has sought to minimize this uncertainty by adopting rules, in the case of expression about public officials or issues of public importance, that are highly speech-protective — even to the point of protecting, in some circumstances, expression that is false or extremely hurtful.

To foreigners, America’s protection of hate speech is baffling because the rants of bigots and hate mongers are not worth protecting. Americans do not really disagree. Let’s be frank, the speech of the religious extremists in the Snyder v. Phelps case, like Galliano’s tirade in a public bar, has absolutely zero social value. We nonetheless protect such speech, not out of an excess of  tolerance, but because even more than hate speech we fear a government that has the power to decide what speech to protect and what speech to ban.

Intolerance of censorship is a powerful First Amendment value. It is a value worth remembering and honoring during Sunshine Week.

Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting freedom of speech and the public’s right to know. 

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ellis Smith March 15, 2011 | 3:24 p.m.

Abridgements of free speech constitute a slippery slope. Once you start, where do you stop? As distasteful as some of us found the recent Supreme Court decision, I'd say the Court was correct.

Why not simply expose those who use hate speech and/or hate tactics for what they are, and leave it at that?

Here's yet another situation where because of a few morons we are advocating piling on yet more laws and regulations. We are drowning in laws and regulations - many not well enforced.

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub March 16, 2011 | 10:09 a.m.

Except we have a double standard in this country on this matter. During the years of GW Bush even having a t-shirt that expressed an opposing thought would be enough to be physically expelled from many events. Demonstrators against republican ideology have been kept many blocks away from conventions and meetings. When the financial moguls meet demonstrators are kept a long distance, so that the members of The G-8, G-12, etc. will not be able to see them. Tear gas and other violent reactions by the police are not rare in these cases.

I believe very strongly in free speech, and that constitutional right gives us much legitimacy in the world's eyes. But, it cannot be selective. If it is acceptable to keep legitimate political protesters at bay then why should not the solution to the Phelps idiocy be to keep them far enough away that the mourners would not be subjected to their vitriolic rantings against us.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.