Tanya Cohen, from the website ThoughtCatalog, wrote a piece regarding the First Amendment and hate speech.  She made a number of comparisons to the First Amendment, and how other countries around the world handle what she describes as “hate speech”.

From the article:

In the United States, hate speech is often spewed forth by people with a great deal of influence, thus making it even more dangerous. Freedom of speech always comes with responsibility, and people in powerful positions need to have extra responsibilities. Consider the case of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson. In a civilized country with basic human rights, Phil Robertson would have been taken before a government Human Rights Tribunal or Human Rights Commission and given a fine or prison sentence for the hateful and bigoted comments that he made about LGBT people. In the US, however, he was given no legal punishment, even though his comments easily had the potential to incite acts of violence against LGBT people, who already face widespread violence in the deeply homophobic American society – and his comments probably DID incite acts of violence against LGBT people.

Like most liberals, she espoused the “everyone else world always does it better than the United States” narrative.   I feel like I’ve seen this when my kids were teenagers arguing with me that their friends parents weren’t as mean and so much more forward thinking than I was.  Hey, I enjoyed being the meanest Dad on the block and I wore that badge proudly.  Anyway, she made this comment which I thought illuminates her thinking:

Nobody in Europe believes that these laws interfere with their sacred, guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Rather, these laws protect freedom of speech by ensuring that it is used responsibly and for the purposes of good.

In essence, because Europeans accept their free speech limitations, somehow, we should to!  To her, hate speech is the nemesis of a good and decent society.  Nevermind it was American principles of freedom that rescued them from their various failings to stop their home grown tyrants – twice.

How naive are the young people of this world?  The United States can’t lead on this issue because we allow people to talk hatefully.  Hate speech is easy to identify, especially if you are a liberal.  And if Europe and the rest of the world can do it, so can we, if we are to become a more progressive and modern society.

To get a better understanding of just how ridiculous she sounds, here is her statement that is most troubling:

Not only is the US the only country without any laws against hateful or offensive speech, but it’s also the only country where the government cannot ban any movies, books, or video games, no matter how dangerous, demeaning to human dignity, or harmful to society they may be.

That pesky book banning theme.  I always think of Professor Jones getting an autograph in his Dad’s research book from Adolph. Great movie. Anywhooo…

When one reads what she says and analyzes the generalized statements she makes and comparing them to reality, you can quickly discover this is not about Free Speech.  It is about establishing rules of conduct on the people that comports with an established narrative of “someone of  progressive mind and authority enacting laws for the good of society.”

Hate speech laws in Europe come from three instruments of international law:

• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In these covenants, freedom of expression is granted to all citizens, so long as you recognize there are rules you must follow for certain types of speech:  Mainly, speech that might inspire hatred to a specific individual or group that could possibly cause incitement.  And perhaps, afterwards, a good Sunday afternoon book burning.

While this is quite noble in its construction, the idea that you can’t say mean things that might disparage a group or individuals, has certain ramifications.  Courts have been unwilling to impose sentences for generalized speech, with some notable exceptions:  Actress Bridgett Bardot was hauled before court and convicted for claiming Muslims were destroying France.  Ironically, a few years later, anti-Semitic riots by Muslim’s in France continued to increase over the previous years. This past year, there was quite the outrage regarding “no-go zones in Paris of Muslim communities“, of which the Paris mayor threatened to sue Fox News for malicious reporting.  Of course, the attacks on Charlie Hebdo drastically changed the rhetoric and forced Parisians to recognize, maybe they do have a problem.

All this now leads to the sticky issue of enforcement.  While Cohen attempts to appeal to some kind of weird logic,

“Do Americans have no idea how ironic it is for them to call their country “the land of the free” when it doesn’t have any kind of law against hate speech?”

she also attempts to make the argument that free speech without restrictions on hate speech is really oppression:

Most countries have freedom of speech, but only in the US is “freedom of speech” so restrictive and repressive.

In places like France, where speech was suppressed against the Muslim’s in Bardot’s case, the exact opposite is true for when Muslim’s respond calling anyone who crosses them Islamophobes, and that in of itself, based on their religious beliefs, allowed them to respond with violence.  Where are the political speech peaceniks now?

In fact, in some liberal’s minds, Charlie Hebdo had it coming.  A satirical magazine was making fun of the Prophet Mohammed, and because French authorities had chosen not to haul in the editors and throw them in jail, Islamic radicals “took care of the problem.”   In reality, free speech really isn’t free speech at all so long as radicals can perform what the government is unable.  Talk about not respecting each other…

The irony of this is that she claims to be a descendant of Holocaust survivors:

As a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I know first-hand the extreme danger that flows directly from hate speech. Those championing hate speech, however, clearly do not understand just how dangerous hate speech is.

Does she not realize that the perpetrators of the Holocaust were, in fact, leftist facists that took away the rights of people, including speech?  And burned some books?

In fairness, Cohen is from Australia, and makes the astounding claim that her native country is far more progressive and forward thinking on freedom and democracy.  Here are a couple of quotes that should pretty much put this to rest (emphasis mine):

The US government is also the only government that cannot ban any groups or political parties, even when those groups or political parties pose a serious threat to democracy.  This is completely incompatible with international human rights standards, which clearly state that freedom of speech does not protect speech which is harmful to society, to morality, or to human rights.  Countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Australia – to name just a few examples – take a much more sensible approach to freedom of expression.  They allow legitimate freedom of expression while banning bigots, hatemongers, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, pro-pedophile groups, terrorist sympathizers, harmful media, Holocaust deniers, pick-up artists, climate change deniers, and other forms of expression which damage society and social cohesion.

….

Do Americans have any idea how ridiculous it seems to people in civilized countries when Americans who call themselves “progressive” actually OPPOSE laws against un-progressive speech? In Australia, you absolutely cannot call yourself a progressive unless you actively work to criminalize all forms of un-progressive speech. Even the most far-right ultra-libertarians in Australia still strongly agree that racial vilification and incitement to hatred (including Holocaust denial) should be against the law.

I’m not so sure that Cohen completely understands what freedom of speech is really about.  In the US, you can say whatever you want.  You do not have the right to not be offended.  People are allowed to express themselves in any way they choose, so long as they do not interfere with the same enumerated rights of others.

For years, the battle of religious freedom versus freedom of speech and expression has gone back and forth, and each time, no one has gone crazy.  Sure, sometimes, people get hurt, but that is a consequence individuals lack of self control.  Once they cross that line, laws exist to punish them for their transgressions.  Laws criminalize behavior; speech is expression.

And part of our freedoms is also a redress of grievances.  Ferguson, while having racial overtones, was also about people who were fed up with their government, even though race-baiters hijacked it for profit.  Ironically, these race-baiters would be violators themselves of European law if it was adopted here.   And yes, that is allowed here because, again, people have the right to complain about their government and the transgression into their way of life.  In some cases, the race-baiters blame the white people, something which is profoundly racist, but is acceptable for progressives.

We don’t accept the idea that to be progressive we have to restrict a person’s right to freedom of expression or speech. Sure, we can debate the issue of hate speech, but to regulate it starts the same slippery slope that Cohen is advocating. Anyone who understands true freedom, the moment you start to restrict people’s rights, it’s very difficult to bring them back.  We must always challenge any laws which may bring us to that slope, no matter its good intentions.  And burning books, movies and video games is never a good idea.  Unless the heat is out, and you’re really, really cold like in that movie, Day After Tomorrow.

Miss Cohen: I would suggest that if we’re not progressive enough for you, you should go back to Australia.  By the way, Abbott’s government repealed that Carbon Tax on the faux Human Induced Climate Change nonsense. And, lately, the Australian Human Rights Commission has some other serious problems which has a good number of the population questioning its wisdom.

Let’s just agree that your article is utter nonsense. Perhaps, maybe, you should also recognize that, in the countries you highlighted as being forward thinking such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Turkey, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan and in certain circumstances, India, your article would be tantamount to treason since, if you were to direct similar disagreement with them on, well, pretty much anything, you would be in court facing harsh punishment.

Hopefully, you can go to Starbucks and have a more meaningful conversation with a forward thinking progressive barista! Of course, if this article is completely satire, and I really hope it is, then we had a good laugh.  If not, still, have a nice day in our backwards country, and enjoy the free speech benefits.  Make sure you let a white person know how lucky they are to have privilege.