In Theory: Could religious arguments be made for restricting speech some might consider offensive?

A June 21 op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times argues for the restriction of “hate speech” in the wake of a recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling rejecting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s practice of turning down applications deemed “offensive.”

“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought we hate,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion for the court.

In a separate but concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. ... Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”

In her editorial, Laura Beth Nielsen, director of the legal studies program and a professor of sociology at Northwestern University, posits that “... data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences” resulting in “tangible harms.” Nielsen claims restrictions on speech would protect “disadvantaged members of our society.”

Q: Are there lessons from a theological viewpoint that address “hate speech”? Could religious arguments be made for restricting speech some might find offensive or, alternatively, in support of the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment?

While not always the case, the old adage, “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” rings true with much of the free speech under question. I know that the Patent Office mention had to do with a music band applying to have their name, the Slants, trademarked. That this is an issue of hate speech is interesting, as the band is entirely Asian, and if their name is deemed hateful, to whom is the hate directed? If I wanted to start a band and call it the Pale Faces, would my band be regarded as hateful, despite the fact that we are all white and it was a name Native Americans used to call us? I think the group was just being ironic or quirky and likely not hateful at all, given that their primary audiences share the same ethnicity.

My worry about infringing free speech is that mine is next. It is getting to the point where we cannot even have a discussion about issues without someone shrieking in horror and immediately throwing a tantrum over its perceived hate-speechiness. The Bible condemns homosexuality, and so we must also, but it is one thing to condemn wrongdoing, and is quite another to deliberately harm a person. The Scriptures direct us to agree with God’s opinion on such matters, and simultaneously seek to persuade those of contrary opinion to repent and be saved. Salvation is an offer to all who live contrary to the will of God (which is everyone who ever lived) and that reconciliation with God comes at the cost of changing our minds and behavior. If I welcome sinners into my church, as all churches generally do, then some will hear preaching that may run opposite to their own human perceptions, despite the fact that they will be treated with love and respect as fellow human beings made in God’s image. Since I do not want this freedom to speak against societal sin infringed, I must endure others who generally say all manner of vile tripe against me and mine.

I also think that speech and actions are two different things. Burning a flag is an action, not the expression of words. Panhandling is an action, not just a mindful exchange of verbal opinion, so I believe we may be able to limit free speech to speech, and allow physical expressions within parameters. The constitution protects the free exercise of our right to speak, not to act however we want, but if we really want hate speech to subside, then we ourselves must not hate — and not look for hate behind every bush and motive.

Rev. Bryan A. Griem

Tujunga

--

I’ll stay in my lane here and leave theology to those experts. But I can share two pieces of good advice from my religious mother: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” and “Consider the source.”

Of course hateful words can hurt psychically, and that is when the wisdom of considering the source of the speech comes in. Not all insults or even criticism are worth taking to heart.

Other countries have a decidedly different take on speech than the United States. In Germany for instance, Facebook and other social media are fined many millions of dollars if they do not remove so-called hate speech from their platforms within 24 hours.

The German view is that their history has shown them where hate can lead. I won’t argue with them, but I like our approach better and believe that the antidote to free speech used wrongly is more free speech used correctively.

Before we consider limiting derogatory speech, let’s address other more dangerous situations. Under federal law and in many states, guns can be legally purchased by people convicted of hate crimes — not words, but assaults and vandalism, for example. We haven’t yet barred people on terrorist “no-fly” lists from legally acquiring weapons.

Here’s a thought, not original to me. Remove the logs from our eyes and not worry so much about the specks.

Roberta Medford

Atheist

Montrose