- Reaction score
That's not a good analogy.Let's protect freedom of speech by banning speech.
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Expressions of hate speech have real impact. For one, they discourage freedom of expression in others - particularly those who are the targets. From that standpoint, a tolerance for hate speech is basically a misguided attempt to defend an abstract philosophically "boutique" notion of free speech even if it means in effect depriving some people of their rights and liberties in a long term way. I'd say it's a naive absolutist notion of First Amendment protection.
Further, the people who are least likely to have a problem with abuses in the form of real life application of such an absolutist notion free speechare those who consider themselves powerful, priviledged, culturally majoritarian/normative or prestigious, and unlikely to ever be a target of hate speech themselves (e.g., they're not black, Mexican, gay, or Muslim). Endorsement of speech speech for these folks is in effect a self-indulgent affirmation of their own stature in society, a form of virulent narcissism.
Importantly, the argument you are making completely ignores political and cultural context. Your argument would make sense if hate speech were not political and cultural practice, if it had no real dynamics in terms of the powers and social stratification, and if it had no negative consquences for individuals.
Hate speech is not just words. It's part and parcel of the process of maintaining a political and cultural reality - a process that involves cultural transmission of hate attitudes and disparate, disciminatory treatment of persons who are the target of hate speech.