Protecting Hatred

"My old man was so full of hate that he didn't know that bein' poor was what was killin' him."
--Agent Rupert Anderson (Mississippi Burning)

In both his recent essay and subsequent conversation with Jon Stewart, Judge Nap explains how protecting hatred preserves freedom. The context is the Confederate flag. The flag has garnered attention because a gunman who killed nine people in Charleston last week identified with it. Because the Confederate flag flies over the South Carolina state house, some people view this as the state's tacit endorsement of what appears to be a racially motivated shooting.

To many people, the Confederate flag constitutes a symbol of hatred as reflected by the practice of Southern slavery and bigotry. As such, these people believe that this symbol needs to go. However, other people view it differently. To them the flag symbolizes states rights, self-determination, independence. As with many symbols, the flag takes on multiple meanings. The wise person sees them all.

But regardless of what meaning the government of South Carolina (or any other government for that matter) might assign to the Confederate flag, the state has no business flying it.

This is because government does not enjoy the same freedom of speech naturally endowed to each of us as individuals. If government was free to endorse an opinion, then it could employ its virtual monopoly of force to coerce others to abide by it. The entire purpose of the First Amendment is to keep government out of the business of speech.

The correct thing to do is for the state of South Carolina to remove the flag from public grounds. Similarly, governments at all levels in the United States should retract all opinion, and processes that produce it, from its operations. For example, government should not recognize individuals deemed to be noteworthy achievers, promote a particular diet,  or opine about economic affairs. Only government speech that can be construed as universally accepted, such as the American flag, or absolutely necessary for governance, such as speed limits, should be retained. That even those issues can be seen as contestable demonstrates just how little speech government should engage in.

On the other hand, the First Amendment guarantees our unalienable right to thought, expression, and association. It bars government from interfering with a person's expressions or associations except when necessary to prevent immediate physical aggression when there is no time for more expression to do so first.

As the Judge noted in his discussion with Jon Stewart, there is no right not to be offended. This means that government can not interfere with speech or associations that some people might find offensive or distasteful. In the case of the Confederate flag, this means that government cannot pass laws to ban its general use or trade. When government is on the receiving end of distasteful speech, it may never, consistent with the First Amendment, interfere with thought or expressions because it fears or despises the views reflected by those speaking.

Hatred, therefore, is a protected mode of thought and expression in a free society. It may provide the basis for association. Groups may form based on hate. If the group expresses a willingness to use violence, then that expression is not criminal in itself. It is only the manifestation of hatred in actual aggression that may be prosecuted.

As Judge Nap observes, a remedy for hatred is reason. Human hatred is always unreasonable. It often errors by connecting traits such as physical characteristics to sweeping behavioral generalizations. Hatred provides a dark place of comfort for weak minds.

The challenge of those on the receiving end of hate is not to hate back--which includes not to recruit the strong arm of government to suppress the hate. Instead, we are free to not take the hate of others personally. We are free to respond peacefully with reason, compassion, and love.