On hate speech

To accept the exercise of power by a government of one’s allies, one must also accept the same exercise by a government of one’s enemies.

To accept the suppression of speech found morally objectionable by a government whose ideology one supports, one must also accept the suppression of speech found morally objectionable by a government whose ideology one does not.

But whether the benefit is worth the risk depends on who is likely to hold that power.

The easiest way to find out which ideology holds power at any given time is to find the one whose adherents support the most suppression of speech. Consider the schoolbook fable of the Puritans: it is said that they protested the lack of religious freedom in England, but established theocracy in their colonies. Better yet, consider National Socialism: they burned books in Nazi Germany, but enlisted the legal aid of the ACLU in America.

It is now said that there is an “international consensus”, backed by the United Nations, that ‘hate speech’ is to be suppressed. What does this say about where power lies?