So first, James Watson makes some rather unfounded assertions about IQ and race, and gets himself in all sorts of hot water. Then, this other guy in The Guardian complains that racist speech like Watson's is a violation of human rights. To which this other other guy objects to on the grounds of free speech.
Then, Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber picks up the discussion by arguing that government can play a role in outlawing hate speech:
Far from liberty being endangered by hate-speech legislation it may—and whether it is depends very much on the specific social and historical circumstances—ensure that many people continue to enjoy effective liberty.At which point Andrew Sullivan, seizing on both the phrases "hate speech" and "effective liberty," sees some hidden left-wing conspiracy:
But the motivation behind hate-crime laws - a loathing of liberty and group-think victimology - is still out there. To make my own position clear: The elimination of bigotry is not a legitimate role of government.To which Bertram replies:
The right frame, in my view, is to think of the state as “we, the people” and to ask what conditions need to be in place for the people, and for each citizen, to play their role in effective self-government. Once you look at things like that then various speech restrictions naturally suggest themselves.So in almost no time at all we go from discredited views on race and IQ, to human rights, to free speech, to hate speech and effective liberty, to group-think victimology, to "we, the people" passing speech restrictions upon ourselves. Brilliant. Well done, one and all.
My problem with the entire discussion is how easily it conflates words with actions and name-calling with law and policy. The original objection to Watson is not what he said, but that his opinions have the potential to affect policy. In his original statement he said that he was:
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."In other words he wasn't just saying racist things, he was advocating policy changes that would affect real people in the real world. That's the difference. You can't outlaw name-calling, or hateful words, but you must always be on guard against their implementation and practice.
And that's the real problem, because in reality our politicians are smart enough, most of the time, to avoid hateful speech, while silently carrying on with passing legislation that is harmful toward minorities, women, children, and gays. It's the deeds and not their words you have to watch out for.
The other problem with all of this is that any coward can hide behind hate speech laws. If you criticize a Nazi, you're violating his rights. If you object to female circumcision or honor killings, you're violating someone else's religious freedom. It's all bad, once you tie identity to rights and protections.
The social goal should always be to protect the marginalized and disadvantaged from the predatory indifference of the powerful. The social reality is that those groups are always in flux, and those who are out of power today are always pushing toward the center.
On the other hand, you'll always recognize those who are in a position to abuse their power: they're the ones who have no need of freedom or speech. They take without asking, and attack without words.
