Responding to Hate Speech

This week, we are deliberating about hate speech--what it is, what free speech issues it raises, and how to respond to that speech in responsible (i.e. ethical) ways. We watched a film from the Working Group this week-- The Fire Next Time -- which I found to be a great examples of how to spark conversation about the issue. Based on our discussion yesterday in class, there is a lot more to talk about.

I was thinking about the question of how one responds to hate speech. The Working Group also made another film about hate in Northern California. I've not seen this one (but am going to see if I can Netflix it soon!). The companion KQED site has a section on response from local leaders. One excerpt caught my eye. In 2001, someone vandalized gay and lesbian themed books in the San Francisco public library. As San Francisco police detective Milanda Moore notes, people need to respond to hate; otherwise, it risks allowing it to continue.

"I always tell people that when you see the slightest thing that leads you to believe that someone has a hate bias, pay attention. Don't leave those things unchecked ... little things can build up into big things. If you see that someone is vandalizing library books, take the time to report it immediately. If you see someone outside writing on the side of the building, putting [up] swastikas, or someone talking about killing immigrants or something, take the time to call. Because it's that type of thing that leads other people; it may not even be that suspect, but it leads people to think that's OK. And in societies where such things are OK, that's where you start to see hate crimes flourish."

What's interesting to me here is the connection she makes between silence and consent, between the expression of hate speech and hate crimes. It highlights a difficult balance. One the one hand, it seems reasonable to want to promote a society that values open discussion and expression, a society that protects, or makes it safe, for people to live and work. American Wonder says it nicely in her blog: "One thought that stuck with me throughout the day connects our right as a citizen to the freedom of speech with a climate of fear and discrimination- are we free where hate exists?" Are we free where hate exists? That simple question really has me thinking.

So I was thinking about Moore's suggested response. In reporting someone writing on the side of the building, what are we doing? Are we directly responding to the speech (i.e. the climate of hate) or to the destruction of the property? What if that person was just outside the library spewing hate speech? I am always struck by the ends to which we will protect property (library walls) but be hesitant to protect people from the impact of hate speech (which some critical legal theorists have described as akin to "fighting words," a category of speech not protected by the first amendment).

So, I wondered what the library did in this case. Turns out they decided to make the vandalism done to those books the subject of an art project-- in other words, more speech. Called "Reversing Vandalism," the library also held workshops on responding to hate and screened the film. It also prompted a lot of media coverage. This seems like the perfect ethical response--turning hate into a learning moment and responding in a way that does not promote hate in reverse.

Needless to say, I am really looking forward to our discussion tomorrow to see what we all make of this.