A recent commentary by Masha Katz and 12 others (“Anti-war sentiment borders hate speech,” March 4, 2003) has disturbing undertones. The article suggests that a sign at 13th Avenue and University Street was akin to hate speech because it equated President George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler near an image of a swastika.
The article boldly asserts, “using a swastika for political discourse is offensive and unacceptable.” It concludes, “The time is now to think seriously about . . . what the result may be if hateful speech is allowed to continue on campus.” In short, the article suggests the speech at issue is so hateful that it should not be allowed. The article fails to acknowledge that not allowing certain speech on campus invariably demands the use of police power.
While I too urge others not to use such symbols of hatred (in part because I am offended by such symbols), I disagree with the assumption that the protest described in the article constituted hate speech. Equating Bush with Hitler conveys a specific and clear message: Bush is a tyrant who uses propaganda to fulfill some sick Third Reich-like destiny to rule the world and commit genocide.
I may disagree with that assertion and even find it absurd if not offensive because it cheapens the suffering of Jews, Gypsies, gays and others, but I find it hard to believe that such an equation constitutes hate speech or that it espouses a viewpoint unworthy of debate. The use of a swastika by itself to communicate fear, intimidation or violence, however, clearly constitutes hate speech. This distinction is important to avoid confusing meaningful political speech with which one disagrees with hate speech.
The article also claims the demonstration was juvenile, unreasonable and mindless — thereby unacceptable — and further suggests that such mindless speech has no place on campus. Nothing can be further from the truth. This sort of speech should be permitted so that Mr. Katz, et al. may expose it for what it is: Unadulterated nonsense.
Free speech is essential to a free and open society as well as a robust learning environment. Others must be free, barring certain circumstances articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., incitement, defamation, clear and present danger, etc.), to express their views even if the majority or minority disagrees.
The First Amendment protects Americans not from one another’s unpleasant speech but from their own government (e.g., Cohen v. California). We may disagree with the views of others, we may deplore the burning of flags, abhor the burning of crosses and meet the brandishing of swastikas with outrage.
Indeed it is our responsibility, just as the article suggests, to hold others politically accountable for what they say or the messages they convey. A letter to the editor is but one good example of how one may respond to disagreeable speech. Yet we must be equally vigilant in ensuring government has no participatory role in holding others accountable for views with which we disagree.
The moment we concede that some speech may be regulated by the government merely because it conveys an offensive or emotional viewpoint is the moment we acquiesce our First Amendment right to our government and the moment we cease to be American.
Simon Ravona is a third-year law student.