What exactly is the difference between speech and hate speech? I hate people all the time, and I have a profound number of reasons for doing so. They don’t happen to include race, but sometimes they do include what they choose to do with their religious views. Let me think on an example—
There is a recent story involving a pastor by the name of Jimenez who said he wished more people had died in the Orlando nightclub shooting. This has sparked a cry for punishment in the name of “hate speech”.
I happen to find this whole business with Pastor Jimenez, and I doubt we’ll have to refer to him as “pastor” for too much longer, to be absolutely ridiculous and offensive. I think someone who would say things like we “shouldn't be mourning the death of 50 sodomites" after the Florida attack should burn in a hell that unfortunately doesn’t exist, and if he dies tomorrow it will be a thousand years too late. I think his religion is a lie, a sham, and a gigantic pile of crap, and he’s an opportunistic swine who is using it to get more donations into the basket so he can live a rich life off of the tasty financial fruits his dewy-eyed members sitting in the pews have earned for actually doing work.
I’m just getting warmed up here. At what point to the hate speech police start banging down my door? How many times do I say that before I’ve crossed the line from hating something with my speech and producing this mythical commodity called “hate speech” that will send me to jail rather than make me annoying? Ironically, Jimenez could easily take shelter from my apparently un-hearable string of abuses against his religious beliefs in the name of hate speech.
The best part of all this outrage is that Jimenez’ comments are a pathetic example of hate speech. He is not not inciting his community to violence, but merely expressing a desire that more violence had occurred. There are many websites all over the place that advocate hatred and separation from race to religion to sexual orientation. He also didn’t say anything I haven’t heard a million times before. Here is the direct pullout from the Washington Post:
“People say, like: ‘Well, aren’t you sad that 50 sodomites died?’ ” Jimenez said, referencing the initial death toll in Orlando, which authorities later clarified included 49 victims plus the gunman. “Here’s the problem with that. It’s like the equivalent of asking me — what if you asked me: ’Hey, are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today?’
“Um, no, I think that’s great. I think that helps society. You know, I think Orlando, Fla., is a little safer tonight.”
He added: “The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job!”
I could do so much better than that without even trying if I so chose, and I think, somehow, after reading it I will find a way to go down the street and get my coffee in the morning. I am inclined to think the LGBT community managed it as well. It’s not in the top thousand on the list of awful things to say. I’ve heard things like that so many times I basically just try to remember a name and what category I place them in.
So why are people suddenly up in arms? The answer is incredibly simple for two reasons. First, this is an election season, and everyone is ripe for outrage. I won’t say it was a slow news day, but I do think this particular story is overblown given the petty and small-scale nature of the man. If you had heard of him before this, I would be amazed.
Second, it made the paper. Well, lots of things do and don’t, and there is no difference between speech and the press in this country. In Justinian’s compilation of Roman law, he cites the Lex Iulia saying that it should not be a crime worthy of punishment for being a fornicator if you are doing it with slaves—I’ll let you decide if this example is offensive—because the damage to your reputation is enough. I’m pretty certain that’s the case with Jimenez.
Also, who can say when hate speech has occurred? Ninety-nine times out a hundred it's subject to the public outcry of the equivalent of Shakespeare's Roman citizens in, to borrow the name again, Julius Caesar. People issue hate speech according to its definition every day, and yet it is only a high profile example that offends a large section of the citizenry that raises demand for blood in this regard.
Finally, there is no person on earth I would grant the privilege for determining what is OK for me to hear and what is not, and I would be shocked if you could find someone who would. Is that an elected office, or an appointee of the president or Congress?
Speech does not enter the realm of civil or criminal law unless it is libel or slander, or is a direct incitement to violence that can reasonably be expected to be acted upon. This certainly does not meet those criteria. Even in the criminal sense, the speech is only the bridge to culpability in the actual act performed, not for the speech itself. Assault or intimidation are the only other forms of criminal speech that can result in judicial intervention.
It seems to me that Jimenez’ comments are precisely the kind of speech that is afforded special protection by the First Amendment, and to shut him up and throw him in jail for saying what he said would be to thrust a stake through the heart of the Constitution.