One Man's Case For Regulating Hate Speech In his new book, Jeremy Waldron writes that the U.S. is the only liberal democracy in the world that doesn't restrict hate speech — and that needs to change. He says, "I don't believe it's the role of law to protect people from being offended," but protecting human dignity is another matter.
NPR logo

One Man's Case For Regulating Hate Speech

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript
One Man's Case For Regulating Hate Speech

One Man's Case For Regulating Hate Speech

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript


More than three decades ago, a suburb of Chicago became the epicenter of the debate over free speech in the United States. That suburb was Skokie, Illinois. It was the late 1970s, and the town had become home for survivors of the Holocaust and their families. That also made the town a target for the National Socialist Party of America, a neo-Nazi group from Chicago. The group planned a march through the heart of Skokie, carrying anti-Semitic signs and proclaiming white power. Saul Goldstein had survived Auschwitz, and letter settled in Skokie. The protest threatened to open old wounds.

SAUL GOLDSTEIN: From my own experience as a survivor, I can tell you that the Nazis are bullies. And bullies are cowards.

MARTIN: At first, Skokie banned the rally, but the Nazis fought the town in court.

FRANK COLLIN: I am interested only in the rights to free speech.

MARTIN: Frank Collin was the leader of the Chicago Nazis. With support from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Nazis brought their case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed that the Nazis had a right to march under the First Amendment. David Hamlin headed the Illinois chapter of the ACLU at the time.

DAVID HAMLIN: It's a textbook case, without question. And it will be in textbooks, I'm sure, for years and years to come.

MARTIN: Hamlin was right. The Skokie case became a landmark, proving that even speech that most Americans find reprehensible is legally protected in the United States. But a few voices say that Skokie decision was wrong.

JEREMY WALDRON: In terms of the defacing of that social environment, the impact on the people concerned, the sense of terror reawakened by the nightmares that this sort of speech evoked - those concerns, it seemed to me, would have justified very serious restriction.

MARTIN: That's Jeremy Waldron. He's a law professor at New York University and Oxford. And he's written a book called "The Harm in Hate Speech." He calls attention to a startling fact: the United States is the only liberal democracy in the world without some version of hate speech regulations. He argues that hate speech is toxic and some of it should be illegal. And a note here - some of the language in our conversation is disturbing.

WALDRON: It's rather like a form of insidious pollution of the social and political environment. I would also want to emphasize that it's not just the issue of offensiveness to the people who are the targeted audience. There's also the creation of fear, apprehension, not to mention having old nightmares re-awoken. In Europe, those include nightmares of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. In the United States, even though we don't have such laws, we still have the nightmares of our racism and racial terrorism.

MARTIN: How do you know hate speech? How do you define it?

WALDRON: It's usually defined, first of all, in terms of its intention; that it's speech, which is intended to cause the stirring of hatred and hostility towards a particular group. That's to enough on most definitions. They also insist that it must be likely to generate such hatred and hostility. Thirdly, the speech must be offered in a threatening, abusive and insulting way. And fourthly, these statutes tend to define safe havens or places where such speech can be engaged in without incurring liability. For example, a conversation in one's home. So, many of these laws bend over backwards to try to narrow down a particular range of damaging speech to the most egregious cases.

MARTIN: But this is, obviously, subjective to some degree. How do you ensure that a government doesn't abuse this power of intervention?

WALDRON: Yeah, it's a very good question. In many areas of law, there are tests that involve disagreement between reasonable people. Our whole Constitution involves numerous standards on which reasonable people disagree. Our approach to those disagreements is not to be terrified by them but to try to work in good faith in the best way we can. And that I think is important in this context as in every other context of legislature.

MARTIN: I'd like to ask you about a couple of different examples. The Westboro Baptist Church, a group that has used extreme anti-gay speech. In the past, they've protested at military funerals and Holocaust memorials. How do you see this playing out in respect to that particular group?

WALDRON: Yeah. There are two important issues here. One is the content of the speech itself. The - forgive me if I use bad words - but people are saying fags must die or that sort of things on their posters. And certainly under the laws that I've proposed and the laws that exist in other regimes, that sort of talk would land people with a prosecution. There's further the question of time, place and manner, having to do not just with the abusive manner in which the speech is performed but also with the intrusiveness on public funerals. And I believe that raises other important issues.

MARTIN: Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who became infamous for setting up what he called an international burn-a-Quran day - your take on that situation.

WALDRON: I think that's in a different category all together. One of the things that I tried to do in the book and tried to do it at length is to distinguish the protection of human dignity from something quite different, which is protecting people from offense, even egregious offense. And I don't believe it's the role of law to protect people from being offended.

MARTIN: So, you think there shouldn't have been repercussions then for Terry Jones?

WALDRON: I think there shouldn't have been legal repercussions under this sort of legislation. Of course, it was a stupid, ill-judged and dangerous thing to have done, but sometimes we have to swallow hard. And I think it's really, really important when we think about these issues to maintain this distinction between dignity and offense and to maintain the distinction between insulting and defaming the believers, and deriding or ridiculing or abusing the religion itself. The first is what hate speech legislation is aimed at, not the second.

MARTIN: So, you conceded that it is unlikely that American laws will change, but you do say there is a role for American leaders, that they bear some responsibility in discouraging this kind of speech.

WALDRON: I think that's absolutely true, and I think everybody should agree with that. So, suppose we were to say that there's nothing that we can do about cross-burning, but certainly there's a role for leaders and educators, for the parents of, say, young men who are disposed to do this to make sure that the sense that this is wrong, even if we have to grit our teeth and call it legal, must be maintained.

MARTIN: Jeremy Waldron, his new book is called "The Harm in Hate Speech." He joined us from Oxford, England. Mr. Waldron, thanks so much.

WALDRON: Thank you very much indeed. It was a pleasure.

Copyright © 2012 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.