Hate speech laws aren’t designed to make people listen – they are designed to shut people up. And they are futile for advancing the interests of marginalized people. I wrote more on this issue in my blog.

http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256——000-.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Obscenity

‘There is a powerful zionist lobby in the US.’

So let’s have some hard-hitting legislation, immediately, while philosophers wrangle with racist science and associated insoluble dilemmas.

And, while I agree that it is a good idea to teach people to deal with the hurt that words cause, it is not a good idea to teach that words should never hurt, because it is demonstrably false. An emotionally healthy person will often be hurt by words, and find it more challenging to rise above that than many minor physical assaults. Some speech acts in some circumstances are sufficiently hurtful to an emotionally healthy and reasonable person that they should be prohibited. That is why we have laws against threats, even when it can be demonstrated after the fact that those threats could not be carried out. Some use of hate speech is relevantly like a threat, and the users and victims know that perfectly well. Figuring out which is not harder than figuring out what acts are threats or what acts constitute slanders.

Thats probably the toughest test of the “free speech for all” position. It is clear that the hutu power shockjocks are partly responsible for one of the worst crimes against humanity of the 20th century, and without them things are likely to have been far less tragic.

But in a way it also teaches us something of the nature of crimes against humanity. Far from simply having the ability to prevent the hutu radio stations broadcasting hate speech and choosing not to use it on liberal lines (which is one thing), the Rwandan government of the time was actually funding the radio stations and using them as part of its genocidal plan – which is another thing entirely.

The fact is that genocides and mass discrimination against minorities is rarely the result of groups acting alone whilst their liberal governments turn a blind eye. Governments are often highly involved with the atrocities. I suppose in the hypothetical world where temporary restrictions on free speech can prevent atrocities then I would support it reluctantly (usual caveats of last resort etc) in the same way others have supported the temporary restrictions on speech during times of war (i.e you can’t spread enemy propaganda) – although I don’t agree with them in this case.

However hypotheticals are only partially useful, in the real world such situations rarely occur. Mass levels of violence usually involve governments and elites, and usually can be improved by fewer restrictions on free speech not more. Solutions to racism rarely come from governments but the grassroots.

In the real world I think there are far more effective and legitimate ways to tackle hate speech; ridicule (frankly there is something pathetic and comical about white supremacists), boycotts, employers firing racists (it doesn’t make sense to be rude to customers), education etc.

Having said that I fully support making racism an aggravating factor when considering the punishment for criminals, and think it is entirely legitimate for the state to promote anti-racism in schools and public bodies in the same way as it is legitimate to promote good sexual health to combat HIV. But putting people in prison purely for being racist jerks is not a sensible road to go down.

Having said that I