Why “Hate Speech” Is Not a Crime

An important question coming from the Manhattan Contrarian, who doesn’t love the US Supreme Court? Francis Menton explains why he believes we should be thankful for our First Amendment. While we are at it, he also suggests we ought to give thanks for a Supreme Court willing to uphold it.

Mr. Menton reports on an incident in the British Isles. In Northern England, a proposed mosque attracted a group of demonstrators:

A 23-year-old man was arrested during a protest at the site of a proposed mosque on the edge of the Lake District after allegedly shouting “We love bacon” in a singsong voice, per the Telegraph. Police officers escorted the single father away from the demonstration, and he could face court action on charges of public disorder or racially aggravated conduct. . . . 

Stirring Hate 

The Muslim religion bans adherents from eating pork. Apparently, a sing-song version of “We love pork” was used to agitate hatred toward Muslims.

… in the UK, they have seen fit to criminalize “hate speech.” The main statute is the Public Order Act of 1986, with subsequent amendments. Relevant statutory text includes this:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if . . . he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred. . . .

With these statutes on the books, Mr. Menton continues, “the UK is now reaping the consequences.”

The Manhattan Contrarian explains how last April, while living in Arizona, Irish comedian Graham Linehan published a tweet,

“If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.” 

Bringing Home the Bacon

On 1 September, Graham Linehan traveled to the UK. Greeting Linehan on his arrival at Heathrow were “no less than 5 policemen to arrest him.”

Linehan was promptly put on trial in Westminster Magistrate’s Court. Reports Mr. Menton. The Manhattan Contrarian was unable, however, to find any info at the time of Menton’s writing of whether Graham had yet been convicted or sentenced.

Fortunately, the US Supreme Court has drawn the line, notes MC: Under the First Amendment, all “hate speech” is constitutionally protected, short of incitement to imminent violence.

Mr. Menton gives examples from the other side of the ledger. Below, he transcribes excerpts from videos of Muslim clerics speaking at various UK mosques.

• From a preacher said to be speaking at the Redbridge Islamic Center, Ilford: “Oh Allah, curse the Jews and the children of Israel. Oh Allah, curse the infidels . . . . Oh Allah, break their works, shake their feet, disburse and tear apart their unity, and ruin their houses and destroy their homes.”
• From a preacher said to be speaking at the Redbridge Islamic Center, Ilford: “Oh Allah, curse the Jews and the children of Israel. Oh Allah, curse the infidels . . . . Oh Allah, break their works, shake their feet, disburse and tear apart their unity, and ruin their houses and destroy their homes.”
• From a preacher said to be speaking in Birmingham: “Behind me the stones will speak and say, oh Muslim behind me there is a Yahudi, come and kill him.”
• No location or mosque is given for this one: “Oh God, hear our hearts regarding the usurping Jews and of every enemy of you and the Muslims. Oh God, limit their number, kill them indiscriminately and don’t leave any of them alive. Oh God, our Lord, shake the ground beneath their feet and freeze the blood in their veins, make them captive to the Muslims.”
• And another one without a specific location or mosque given: “Oh revenger, revenge from the oppressive aggressor occupying Zionists. Oh Allah, shake the earth beneath them. Oh Allah, limit their number, kill them indiscriminately and do not leave any of them alive.”

In the US, the above statements would not be considered criminal.

Menton also speaks of the fundamental difference between our “free speech” regime and the British “hate speech” regime.

(In the US,), free speech is a right of individuals against the government. It restricts the government as to what speech it can prosecute criminally.

The “hate speech” regime now in force in the UK does the opposite: it empowers police and prosecutors to pick and choose whom they want to arrest and prosecute.

Unfortunately, no prosecution regime is ever completely objective or politically neutral, and thus inevitably “hate speech” ends up defined as most of the speech of our political adversaries, but never the speech of our allies. In today’s UK, that proposition is getting taken to absurd extremes.