Words of Hate

[TygrBright]

I will defend to the death anyone's right to make hateful remarks, and I will defend to the death the rights of a free press to cover those hateful remarks.

BUT

I think it is time that we had a national discussion about the COST of such self-expression, and whether we wish to promote other forms of expression in public dialogue, or maybe even sanction hateful discourse with collective disapproval.

For those uncertain of their terms to "sanction hateful discourse with collective disapproval" is not, in any way, an abrogation of the rights of free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment. If you want to engage in hateful rants, no one will stop you, you will not be arrested, or brought to trial, or convicted on the basis of what you way.

But no one has to listen (or read.) No one has to respond to hateful diatribes. No one has to offer a forum for hate, or publish it, or allow it to stay up on their website, or attend to it. We can marginalize hate-filled speech without abrogating the right to speak thus.

We can, once again, make it socially unacceptable for publicly-supported airwaves to bear the fevered rantings of hatemongers, without trampling on the First Amendment.

Of course, this raises the issue of defining "hateful" speech and expressions, and we are left, again, with Justice Potter Stewart's standard as a starting place. I know it when I see it. Or hear it. But I would not set myself up as an arbitrator.

I believe in disagreement. I enjoy a witty, acrimonious discussion by opposing parties who have a knack with words. I confess it: I read and often enjoy The Rude Pundit, who is truly, outstandingly, and over-the-top rude, and who piles odium on his target of the moment with such succulent venom that it is almost an art form. Ah, but here is an analogy: If the Rudester is "Ulysses," truly hateful speech is "Juggs Magazine". There's a clue there about what is, and isn't, hateful speech, but I haven't thought about it enough to tease it out, yet.

Hate is contagious. Hate nurtures the least-evolved part of our decision-making ability, at the expense of more intelligent, humane, and thoughtful judgment. Hate breeds division, and inflates a fearful, powerful, imaginary "them" at the expense of "us." Hate prevents us from an empathic understanding of the fears, wishes, and needs of others who are just as human as we are. Hate promotes behaviors and choices that degrade communities and destroy our ability to maintain social institutions. And finally, in its extreme form, hate engenders anti-social action and even violence.

Hateful speech spreads the contagion of hate. If we agree with it, we feel vindicated and our hate grows. If we disagree with it, we respond with more hate for those with whom we disagree.

Here on Democratic Underground, and especially during my terms as a moderator, I have seen many, many, many complaints that we "allow" hate speech. Conversely, I have seen just as many complaints that we are "stifling free expression," "censoring," and even "restricting people's First Amendment rights."

Well. The lattermost is impossible: The First Amendment does NOT guarantee anyone the right to visit Skinner and EarlG's website, maintained at their expense with money they raise from this community and advertising revenue they sell, on servers they rent, and violate the standards they have established for acceptable discourse. If you don't like those standards, you are free to refrain from donating, refrain from contributing your valuable reflections to the discourse here, or even to refrain from clicking on the link to open Democratic Underground on your browser. If enough people did that, Skinner and EarlG would quickly realize that the standards they have established for acceptable discourse are making the maintenance of this website untenable, and they would have to alter those standards or kill the website. It hasn't happened yet.

The charges of "stifling free expression" and of "allowing" hate speech do not cancel one another out. When I first became a monitor, it was laid out for us very clearly: The standards established for acceptable discourse here reflect the owners' commitment to providing a lively, diverse, but Democratic-with-a-capital-D community to discuss public affairs. So, we are allowed a great deal of freedom to call Republicans some names but not others. We are also allowed some freedom to call Democrats some names but not others.

The list of names we are not allowed to call anyone, Democrat or Republican, continues to grow, however, because we also have a commitment to not nurturing or encouraging hate. Thus, names that reflect hate for people based on qualities like gender or color or religion or physical ability or mental status or sexual orientation are not acceptable. Not even when used in jest, by members of the very group the term reflects on. They might slip by sometimes, based on a context that makes it very explicit that they are not being used hatefully, but for the most part, we moderators are instructed to remove posts using them. Even with the "sarcasm" tags and "Well, I'm gay/black/catholic/etc. myself" qualifications, text on a website is too easy to misinterpret.

And the list of names we are not allowed to call one another is comprehensive. That is, we allow plenty of disagreements with, and even attacks on, each others' viewpoints and arguments. But as soon as we descend into attacks on each other, the debate is over. No matter how much of an obvious idiot the person we're arguing with may be, the rules of the website say that we can call her/his arguments idiotic in a hundred ways and a hundred times, but as soon as we make explicit the connection between idiotic arguments and the idiot making them, we're done.

It's often a very difficult line to draw, especially when every avid Democratic Undergrounder knows from experience that one debate tactic resorted to all too often is the ad hominem attack. And one resorted to just as often (maybe even oftener) is the accusation of an ad hominem attack. "You disagree with me, therefore you are biased against my religion/sexual orientation/gender/race/place of residence/etc./etc./etc." "You called my argument idiotic, therefore you called ME an idiot and that's a personal attack and the mods need to remove it!"

I have made many idiotic arguments in my time on DU. They are invariably pounced on and gleefully dissected by other DUers, sometimes to my pouting rage, which usually signals me that it's time to take a break from DU for a few days. It's just a website, for petesqueaks, and no website on the entire internet is worth me getting my blood pressure into the red for. I don't think anyone has a personal vendetta against me, although I know I've pissed some people off with my views, and many more with the fact that I've had to do my moderatorly duties at their expense.

But as a mod, I have seen personal vendettas up close and very ugly here on DU. It's inevitable that there will be some. Not everyone who comes here to post is the paragon of intelligence, deliberation, and maturity that we'd all like to think we are. But this website is still a vibrant, bickering, irritating, joyful, affirming, maddening place to be, because we have a commitment to not allowing the words of hate to flourish unchecked. We DO "sanction hateful discourse with collective disapproval," in the form of community standards and mod action.

It doesn't make DU a nice, happy, wonderful place where we all agree and love one another. It doesn't keep DU's discourse on an elevated plane of enlightenment, not by any means. It doesn't prevent us from having spite and contention escalate to the point of banning and losing members now and then.

But I think the model we have here could provide a lesson for other media. Words of hate have consequences. While preserving every citizen's right to spew hateful words out of their mouth or from their keyboard, we have no obligation to tolerate them socially or provide a forum for them. A little less public tolerance, and a few more social sanctions, for words of hate, are needed if we are ever to restore the ability of our polity to engage in democratic self-government.

opinionatedly,
Bright

[billh58]

1. Well said!

K&R...;-)

[Time for change]

2. Yes -- Hateful speech can be very destructive in so many ways

For one thing, it can kill and has killed. Our corporate media should be ashamed of some of the things they allow on tv and radio.

Even on DU I think that too much of it is allowed. The line between calling someone an idiot and calling what they say idiotic is very thin indeed. When someone does the latter, I think that they ought to at least be required to back it up by some reasoned argument -- otherwise it has no redeeming social value and serves only to pollute the atmosphere.

[The Green Manalishi]

4. Very Thin indeed?

I respectfully disagree.
Indeed, IMHO, anyone who can not readily, easily, and consistently make the distinction is not ready for civilized intellectual intercourse. YMMV

[dalaigh lllama]

3. Maybe the moderators here should do some work for the media

as it seems they are indiscriminate in what they choose to air and/or publish. I've long since lost any respect for the MSM, tho; still have loads of respect for this site and the mods and administrators. You all do an awesome job.

OT -- Have to say I'm stealing the expression "for petesqueaks" from you. Love it.

[mentalslavery]

5. This current public discourse is boarder-line illegal.

There is a drumbeat of comments and public displays that approach threats of violence and disturbing the peace. This is how they kill our leaders. A pattern of escalating rhetoric framed as political activism that eventually boils over.

We are held hostage by our simplistic understanding of freedom of expression. The net effect is that it depresses public discourse, the opposite effect of what it is intended to do. The founders warned us about this. They specifically expressed concerns about misuses of expression, including misinformation and intimidation as tactics which should not be confused with free expression rights.