The right to hate and be hateful?

​The right to hate and be hateful?
 
Once again the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is being referenced as the proof that all in the United States have a right to express their views no matter how hateful, ugly and dangerous.  The recent events in Charlottesville and the response of President Trump and others have left many with raw emotions. It seems that there were various groups represented at the demonstrations in Charleston which included:
 

• Those neo-Nazis and other white supremacy groups who seem to believe their delusion that there is such a thing as a pure race and that its members are somehow superior and more deserving of the benefits of society.
• Those who sincerely believe that monuments and statues of those men and women who defended the views of the slave owners and state’s rights during the Civil War are not only an important part of the history of the United States but deserve to be publicly honored/celebrated.
• Those who sincerely believe that we should learn from our history, but that monuments and statues honoring those who defended slavery have no place in public spaces (Other than museums and other places where history is told/depicted).
• Those who believe that hateful speech and/or threats of violence are necessary and should be considered protected speech under the First Amendment.
• Those who believe that while everyone has a right to their opinion hateful speech, especially when it directly or indirectly incites violence, is not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
• Those who believe that it their right to respond to hateful speech with hateful speech.
• Those few individuals such as the person who drove the car into demonstrators causing and death and many injuries who believe that it is their right and duty to protest violently.
• Those who believe that we, as a Nation, are no longer racist except for the racism of accusing others as being racist.
• Those who believe that racism is still an integral part of our society and that there can be no peaceful coexistence until it is eliminated from our society or, if not eliminated, greatly reduced.

 
It seems obvious to me that once a society outlaws or censors some exercise of speech it is easier to justify further censoring and/or criminalizing the exercise of free speech. 
 
It also seems to me that from a moral and practical viewpoint, we need to strongly encourage each other to engage in what I would term civil discourse/debates.  Civil discourse certainly allows for:
 

• Very divergent viewpoints.
• The sharing of very divergent opinions without personally attacking the worth or the rights of those with whom we disagree.
• The right to have one’s viewpoint heard.
• The ability to engage in a debate and still function as a neighbor who is willing to help in times of need.
• The absence of violence or the threat of violence (overt or covert).

 
Some believe, from a moral and practical perspective, there is no room for:
 

• The views of Neo Nazi or any other white supremacy groups.
• Community leaders who cannot represent all the people and who, directly or indirectly, express hateful opinion or support those who express those opinions.

 
We in the United States historically limit the exercise of free speech. Some example includes:
 

• Shouting fire in a crowded theater.
• “It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. Among other things, the FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license, and deny a renewal application. In addition, a federal district court may impose fines and/or imprisonment for up to two years on those who are convicted of criminal violations of the law.”  (No doubt as the community changes the restrictions has been fewer and fewer.)
• Private businesses have the right to restrict the limit of free speech.
• Schools and other public institutions have rules limiting the exercise of free speech.
• If serving in the military or incarcerated in a jail or prison, there are often restriction on the use of language which might incite a riot.

 
The questions which we may now need to ask ourselves are:
 

• Whether we, as a nation, want to continue to pick and choose what free speech will be tolerated.
  • Will speech which is designed to incite violence be tolerated against groups, the nation or individuals.
• Can be expect our leaders, including the President of the United States, to represent all the people or a select few of the people?
  • Is there a difference between partisan views which may benefits some at the expense of others and actions which are designed to exclude or actively discriminate against a particular group?
  • Is supporting a group which directly or indirectly incites violence again a portion of the body politic a treasonable offense.
  • Are actions such as Executive Order 9066 signed by President Roosevelt during WWII era a treasonable action. Can the same question be fairly asked regarding the order by President Trump limiting the rights of Muslims?
  • To what extent can the citizens expect and/or demand civil treatment of and discourse between its elected representative including the president and all of its citizens.

 

• It is possible to have a civil, non-partisan discourse or debate about the issues herein raised. If not, what are the potential consequences?

 
I most also ask:  Is it possible for me personally to engage in civil discourse with African Americans, Muslims, members of white supremacy groups, David Duke, and all other citizens and residents of these United States?  Am I serious when I say that I totally agree with Ruby Sales who learned as a child “I love everybody.  I love everybody in my heart. There is no room for hate in my heart.” (podcast of On Being “Where Does It Hurt?” – September 15, 2016)  If this is free my personal belief is that I do not have the right to hateful speech.
 
Written August 16, 2017