This is an absolutely brilliant piece by Jacob one of this blog’s regular guest posters and it is on the subject of ‘hate speech’. Jacob referenced the recent appearance on the US Capitol Hill of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and how Mr Zuckerberg ‘sweated and stumbled’ to reconcile the idea of prohibition of ‘hate speech’ whilst still allowing legitimate free speech.

This article is timely and relevant to the position that many people find themselves in which is that censors of indeterminate nature or bias are watching over Mr Zuckerberg’s platform and silencing voices that should be free to be both debated and challenged where necessary. Most of us are adults and don’t need a Nanny, least of all one like Mr Zuckerberg.

So, without further ado or delay, here is ‘Hate Speech’ by Jacob

Hate speech?

If you do, you’ll probably be a Zuckerberg who couldn’t quite define what it is but stands by the principal that he hates hate speech nonetheless.

At his hearing, it was agreed that incitement to violence is hate speech, but even here I would disagree. Incitement to violence is incitement to violence. Antifa use FB and twitter to list names and places of violent protests. They tell their members what sort of weapons to bring and how best to conceal their identities. If incitement to violence is hate speech then why is this allowed? Next, mention was made of human trafficking as an example of things that social media companies could and should be clamping down on as being hate speech. Again, this isn’t hate speech, it’s the selling and purchasing of human bodies. It’s not hate speech.

Zuckerberg stumbled and sweated and the best he could proclaim was that he felt it was his duty to create spaces where people felt safe (without realizing that everything is relative and no one feels the same degrees of safety in any one environment or by hearing the exact same words spoken). At this point he was taken to task and given a vision of a future where his social media platform gets to dictate what people can and cannot say. People who are pro-life, for example, would be punished and would have no voice because their opinions would be considered to be hateful. He was then given stats which revealed that 40% of Americans under the age of 35 all agreed that saying anything that could possibly hurt another person’s feelings should be censored and punishable. How is any of this possible? Are we all to become mind-readers or walk around tip-toeing on eggshells with only certain words and mannerisms and facial expressions permissible?

Hate is an emotion. Hate away. I hate the left. I hate Islam. I hate the colour magnolia. I’m under no obligation to like or agree with or be in acceptance of anyone or anything on this planet. No obligation whatsoever. I’m free to hate as many people and things as I like. I do, however, have to realize that some speech is libelous if I’m spreading falsehoods about a person whom I hate. There are consequences to people’s actions. Hating is okay, it’s allowed. What’s not okay is violence. If your hatred drives you to violence then there will be a price to pay, but hating in and of itself is fine. Hatred is a toxic emotion and detrimental to one’s well-being and quality of life, but no one has the right to tell anyone else not to hate.

Criticism. Is this hate speech? Criticism can range from an in-depth review of a Shakespearean play to telling someone that they’re too fat. It should be obvious here that one is an academic pursuit while the other is simply rude, but it’s not hate speech. It’s mocking, it’s insulting, and it can oftentimes be very very funny especially if accompanied by a meme and directed at a bully.

The words spoken reveal the nature and the character of a person. If someone’s a hater, let them keep talking. Let them reveal their true nature and then simply avoid them. Don’t invite them out to drinks and ignore them at parties. It’s simple. It’s like pressing the mute button or changing the channel on the TV. All opinions are allowed and all voices must be heard.