Read Part 1 here.
In our previous installment, we defined so-called ‘hate speech’ for the purpose of discussion. We settled on the content theory; i.e. speech become hate speech when its content incites hatred for a group. We then examined the proposition ‘we must reduce the amount of immigrants and refugees we take in because more people in the workforce drives down wages’, noting that there is both a fact claim and a value claim. We also note that under the content theory, both the fact claim and the value claim are capable of incitement. Now that we’ve put so-called “hate speech” on as firm a theoretical ground as possible, it’s time to knock it down.
The Big Problem Remains the Same
Attempts to ban hate speech, no matter how good the intention, run into the same problem as all other speech bans: someone has to be the censor. As I have pointed out before, someone is going to have to define what hate speech is. As we saw in part 1, even defining the category is no easy task. Then, whatever definition the censor settles upon, the censor will have to apply that rule to actual speech. In the final analysis, you may not like the decisions the censor makes.
If you are disciple of Dr. Kendi and his “anti-racism” movement, you are going to cry foul if the censor is appointed by the likes of Ron DeSantis. Gov. DeSantis has already demonstrated his willingness to censor woke speak while in power. What’s to stop him from saying that so-called “anti-racist” speech is hate speech and using his power to censor it? I doubt that the anti-hate speech crowd (which is primarily a lefty phenomena) would approve. But, as always, this is the road you head down when you want to make exceptions to free speech: those in power will use those exceptions to crush speech of which they do not approve. Better to have free speech then shifting standards of discourse dependent on who is in power.
Put another way, Dr. Kendi’s “anti-racism” is hateful, divisive, and racist. However, we cannot allow Gov. DeSantis to censor him.
Nonetheless, there would be no need to rehash this point if there was not another problem all together with the concept of hate speech. While censoring hate speech has all the same down sides as all censorship, it raises some distinct issues
The Heckler’s Veto
In the discussion and jurisprudence of free speech, a recurring issue is the Heckler’s Veto. This occurs when the government or some other censor stops a speaker from speaking because the censor fears a negative reaction from part of the speakers audience. A classic example would be a city government preventing Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X from speaking to prevent white pro-segregation groups from reacting violently.1 That is, the white pro-segregation groups are the heckler, and to appease their sensibilities, the authorities cancel the speech of a civil rights leader.
The problem here should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell: you don’t have freedom of speech when a heckler gets to shut down a speaker. Bob cannot be allowed to stop Miranda from speaking by threatening to start a riot.2 In such a case, one would hope that the authorities would remove Bob if he started getting frisky as opposed to silencing Miranda to appease Bob. That is; bad actors, i.e. hecklers, don’t get to get their way by acting badly.
This is what so-called “hate speech” is - just another heckler’s veto.
Hate Speech as a case of the Heckler’s Veto
Let us then return to the proposition we are considering, ‘we must reduce the amount of immigrants and refugees we take in because more people in the workforce drives down wages’. We have already seen that this can qualify as hate speech under the content theory. It has also been a staple of the immigration debate ongoing in the United States since at least the Clinton administration.
Let us begin with the easier case - the fact claim being made. When our putative politician utters this proposition to his audience, he is making a claim of fact (i.e. one that is true or false). To wit; that more people in the workforce drives down wages and that allowing in immigrants and refugees puts more people in the workforce.
This may or not be true of the local economy at issue. One the one hand, if the number of jobs remains relatively stable, more available workers will theoretically drive down wages. Of course there are a lot of assumptions here, including that the new workers’ qualifications match the jobs in the economy. If the new workers lack the qualifications to do the job, they provide no real competition, and if they are overqualified they will have no interest in the existing jobs. There is also the complication that increasing the number of people in a local economy will increase demands for goods and services, theoretically creating a knock on effect where more jobs are created. In short, this specific issue is complicated and nuanced. Demagogues from either side offering simple actions should be ignored.
And herein lies the point. We as a society need to be able to openly and intelligently discuss issues of fact in order to make good policy decisions. In this case there is a complicated question of how immigration effects employment and wages, and we need to have an idea of how these interact before we as a society act. To be blunt, we should act on facts, not bullshit and ideology.3
But, as we saw in the previous installment, this discussion can incite hatred. But are we really ready to give a hecklers’ veto to the side that wants to shut down the discussion about facts? We should not be. Digging into the facts of a matter can be uncomfortable, and if that is where free inquiry takes us then so be it. Instead of silencing speech about facts, suppress the possibility for violence on the part of anyone incited to hatred. This is best done by devolving power and bringing them into the conversation. Our “hate speech” censor makes the problem worse by hording power and shutting community members out.
Which brings us to the issue of values. When a politician tells us ‘we must reduce the amount of immigrants and refugees we take in because more people in the workforce drives down wages’, they are also stating a position of value; i.e. that we should value wages over a community open to new arrivals (immigration) or protecting people in actual danger (refugees). We need, as members of our community, to be able to fully discuss who we are and who we want to be.
I digress for a moment to note the way this argument plays out in the contemporary United States. Immigration is a hot-button issue here, and the issues are complicated, which makes it an ideal case for examining hate speech. There is a real labor arbitrage problem here in the good ol’ USA; if you disagree, do some research into the meat packing industry. The meat packing industry used to be a unionized operation which paid a living wage had had high safety standards. Over the years, the industry cut labor costs by exploiting unauthorized immigrants, themselves often desperate. This new workforce remains impoverished and, to add injury to injury, safety standards were thrown out the window. The employers also exploit the fact that the unauthorized immigrants are less likely to complain about wage theft and safety violations to the authorities because they fear deportation and other legal trouble. The employers pocketed their ill gotten gains.
People in favor of more open immigration are right to point out that there is a good amount of xenophobia and racism involved in anti-immigration sentiment in the United States. Just look at the open welcome extended to Ukrainian refugees (white), versus the cold shoulder given to the Afghan refugees (brown) who aided our military during our occupation, or the Central American refugees (also brown) and Haitian refugees (black) fleeing from countries that we destroyed over the past decades.
However, there is a vocal segment of those favoring open immigration that views any discussion of limitations on immigration as xenophobia, racism, or both. Thus any utterance that runs contrary to their view will necessarily be hate speech in their mind. Some people who take this extreme view genuinely believe that any opposition to immigration is born from xenophobia or racism. They are of course wrong, but calling their interlocutors out for hate speech is a convenient way to avoid debate and empathy. Others know that opposition to immigration involves legitimate concerns that are not racist or xenophobic, but find it convenient to shout down their opponents with accusations of hate speech. They are of course arguing in bad faith, but by leveling accusations of hate speech they can avoid actually having to acknowledge theconcerns of their interlocutors.
Put another way, in the factual debate there is the problem of determining exactly what effect immigration has on employment and wages. If it is the case that increased immigration can be shown to lower wages and increase unemployment, then it is up to the community to determine which they value more: open immigration policies or protecting existing living standards, and how to balance these values. The issue is not an easy one, and one side labeling the other’s arguments “hate speech” out of the gate destroys the possibility of discussion instead of promoting it.
On the other hand, let’s assume that the proponents of immigration can show that increasing levels of immigration benefit the community, as it did in the case of Lewiston, Maine. At that point, someone who continues to be against Somali immigration in Maine on the ground that it drives down wages is most likely reacting in a racist manner and should be called out for it. But here, the question of fact is answered in a way that shows there is no question of two or more values being in conflict. The problem in this case is not so-called “hate speech” but racial hatred simpliciter.
On the other hand, if your interlocutor in Lewiston looks at the evidence and withdraws their objection to increased immigration, then you have won an argument on its merits. Congratulations! However, you now have evidence that your interlocutor’s opposition was genuinely economic and not racist. Aren’t you glad you discussed the matter instead of shutting down discussion at the outset?
In summary, accusations of hate speech serve no purpose except to shut down discussion. Such accusations prioritize bullshit over facts, and demonize the values of others when they do not jibe with the accuser’s.
But What About Nazis?
Right about now is when the would-be censor of hate speech will point to some group of Nazis or other and man their last bastion: are you going to defend the right of Nazis to promote Nazism?
To which we should answer: valuing free speech and the right to say stupid and/or evil shit does not entail agreeing with said stupid and/or evil shit.4 But it seems too many wokies are unable to maintain this mental distinction.
So let me leave you with an insight. If you have some losers walking around promoting Nazism, and significant numbers of your community find their pro-Nazi talk persuasive, you have a Nazi problem not a speech problem. You may want to address the real problem instead of sweeping it under the rug with bans on speech.
But what benefits the heroes also benefits the villains. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 US 43 (1977) from back when the ACLU did not insist that its clients had to be in a state of woke grace in order to exercise their constitutional rights. Yes, American Nazis have the Constitutional right to make racist jackasses of themselves in public. That goes for the Westboro Baptist Church as well. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).
See Gregory v. Chicago, 394 US 111 (1969). In this case, a group of liberal left protestors annoyed a group of right wing bystanders. The right wing bystanders started getting frisky. Despite the bystanders being the ones causing the trouble, the Chicago police arrested the protesters to “maintain order.”
I was going to say that ideology and bullshit were the same thing, but to do so is an insult to bullshit.
Don’t bother answering “yes” or “no” to the question; it’s always posed as a gotcha-style question by someone who fancies themselves clever.