The problem with hate speech laws

    It’s far easier to understand the problem with hate speech laws when you realize that “hate speech” isn’t really a descriptor of the subjective state of the speaker, it’s a statement about the subjective state of the listener (or regulator).

   When someone says “free speech is protected, hate speech is not protected”, what they really mean is “free speech is protected, speech I hate is not protected”. And thus the inherent dangers and contradictions in the laws begin to become clear.

   It’s easy to become confused about what is meant, when you have try to reconcile the intended meaning of “hate speech” with its practical and historical usage. It only begins to make sense when you realize that it is, and in fact must be, a statement about the listener’s feelings. Once you can see that, what happened in Venezuela and what is happening now in places like Canada, Scotland, and Australia begins to make sense.

    You can’t really make a law pronouncing knowledge of and control over the subjective states of others. It’s not just untenable and tyrannical, it’s impossible. We don’t have access to the subjective states of others. But you can make a law based on your own subjective states. And you can express your subjective states through a law and enforce them on other people through it. That is possible.

   The problem is, any time you attempt to make a law preventing hate (maybe even for admirable reasons), you end up creating a law that expresses it. That’s not really anyone’s fault, it’s just part of the (often unrecognized) structure of being. No matter how many times you try to turn lead into gold, you’re going to end up with a chain around your neck.