We have a huge problem in our country in understanding the line to draw around free speech. This is primarily because people who want to spread hatred and misery for money and power want to use hate speech for their own profit. In the early part of the 21st century this has taken the form of trying to sell hate speech as either "religious belief" or "political opinion" that is protected by the 1st Amendment to the constitution. While this hate speech is often accompanied by religious and political opinions, the hate-speech itself is separate and distinct from these protected forms of speech.
The lie that cynical hate speech for profit is either untouchable or benign is an enterprise goes back to the Sophists who Socrates battled in ancient Greece. In fact goes back to before written history.
Let's break it down with an generalized example:
"Shmarnology (general euphemism for some sin or crime) is blasphemous or illegal and should be punished by God or the justice system."
- Political opinion: "Shmarnists should be put in jail for committing an act of shmarnology!"
Note that the political opinion dictates what a government (political) entity should do when faced with some act which violates some sort of law that should be passed. A valid political opinion on the matter would be concerned that any such person accused of the crime of shmarnology would be given the due process in their own defense, but if found guilty by a court they should suffer legal consequences.
- Religious opinion: "Shmarnists will be punished by God for committing an act of shmarnology!"
Note that the religious opinion dictates what a god-like (religious) entity should
do when faced with some act which violates some sort of commandment or law from a higher power. A valid religious opinion on the matter would be concerned
that any such person accused of the crime of shmarnology would receive a just and true judgement of a omniscient being, and if found guilty by such godly judgement they should suffer eternal consequences.
- Hate speech: "Shmarnists deserve violence/cruelty for committing an act of shmarnology!"
Note that the hate opinion dictates what a ANYONE who is not a part of the hate group should be allowed to do when faced with some act in which someone gives up their rights to be treated with human dignity. A hateful opinion on the matter would have NO concern that any such person accused of the crime of shmarnology would be given the due process in their defense, nor mercy by God, but if found guilty by themselves or "public opinion" they should suffer physical violence, elimination of human rights, removal of personal dignity, physical and/or financial exploitation.
Hate speech almost always places the "opinion" above any and all religious or political organizations or authorities to refute, therefor all other religious or political organizations must be corrupt and they are the only person or group which can be consulted about the matter.
I'm sure all of this sounds VERY familiar.
While most of this sort of charlatanism is originating from the political and religious Right in America, there are many in "Centrists" circles, and even on the political and religious Left, who give in to this narrative either from ignorance or a desire to exploit the same tactics in their own spheres.
Often it comes from a confusion in how their own opinions can avoid the label of "hate speech" when pervasive of hate speech, who revel in the cynical view that nothing can be proven and nothing is "real," will inevitably state authoritatively that any counter-opinions to their hate speech is, actually, simply hate speech.
But there is always a tell. What to look for:
Whataboutism: Often the hate-speaker will freely admit to their own hatred, but simply state that this hatred is warranted because of the hatred from the other person. This is a tell.
Someone with a valid political or religious opinion will be able to
justify their position. Only someone with an unjustifiable (i.e.
hate-based) opinion will not be able to (publicly) state the reasons for
their belief/opinion.
Conspiracy: Often the hate-speaker will try try to deflect from specific criticism by appealing to a nebulous and undefined conspiracy against them. If they were truly the victim of a "witch hunt" there would be a corresponding, and specific, group of "inquisitors" they could point to without any specifics of who, what, when, where, etc. This is a tell.
Note how Harvey Weinstein's accusers weren't saying, "society" abused them, they were specifically identifying a person who was guilty of abusing them. This is why such an accusation must be taken seriously by law enforcement. (Also note the appeal to actual harms and laws.)
A politician accusing the "news media," or nonspecific political opponents, of being "against" them, without any specifics of what was said or what specifically they got wrong, is an example of an accusation which should not be taken seriously, but rather should be examined for what they are trying to deflect from or obfuscate.
Remember:
- A valid political opinion will explain how the position is good for society.
- A valid religious opinion will explain how it is all part of the wisdom and perfection of God.
- Hate speech can only be justified in cruelty and de-humanization of a group (often a marginalized group when the hate-speaker is seeking power).
