No right to hurt others

Peter LaBarbera heads the organization named Americans for Truth bout Homosexuality. The group consists of himself and anyone he can convince to donate, which isn't many these days. He is very much against us, though he usually comes across as bumbling rather than dangerous.

Several big anti-gay crusaders go to places like Uganda and are quite successful in stirring up trouble. LaBarbera gets invited to places such Canada, where marriage equality has been around for a decade. And he is detained at the border while his luggage (full of brochures and books) is searched to determine if there is any hate speech. That is illegal in Canada. He's eventually allowed to enter.

A report of that incident by Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin led to a discussion of whether hate speech should be included under Free Speech. Commenter FYoung supplies a good definition:

Like every other freedom and right, free speech does not include the right to hurt others.

There are all kinds of limits to free speech, such as: bad-mouthing your employer, blackmail, bomb threats, copyright, defamation, disclosing official secrets, distribution of pornography, extortion, false labeling, forgery, fraud, giving professional advice without being professionally qualified, misleading advertising, professionals non-reporting of child abuse, solicitor-client privilege, threatening to hurt someone, trade-mark infringement, violation of confidentiality by a professional, violation of privacy laws, yelling “fire!” in a crowded theatre.

Few think there is anything wrong with these limits; they are taken for granted and rarely even discussed.

Another limit is hate speech. The reason for it is that hate speech leads to violence, It is always a prerequisite of genocide.

Yet, all types of objections are raised about this one limit, and only this limit.

From all the venom that is spewed in our direction -- and the violence that results -- I'm inclined to agree that hate speech should not get First Amendment protections.