February 3- 9, 2005

slant

Mouth Piece

When does free speech become hate speech?

by Nancy French

Our walk home from church one October afternoon took us directly through the gay and lesbian community's annual Outfest celebration. We walked around booths for the transgendered, Kerry campaigners signing up volunteers, and women wearing T-shirts with unfortunate puns on the word "Bush." My husband and I stopped, however, when we saw Christian protesters shouting so loudly through a bullhorn that the obviously flummoxed Outfest speaker was running out of condescending, clever retorts. Eventually, frustrated attendees asked the police to intervene.

A few days later, we were shocked to receive an e-mail titled "Pennsylvania Christians Face 47 Years in Prison for Reading the Bible in Public." Although accounts differ on what exactly transpired, it's clear a self-appointed security detail called the Pink Angels gathered around the protesters with large Styrofoam boards to hide the protesters' Bible-quoting signs. Eleven protesters, members of the local Christian group Repent America, were removed from the scene — some in handcuffs — and charged with misdemeanors. Additionally, four of these protesters were charged with felonies: possession of instruments of crime (bullhorns), ethnic intimidation and inciting a riot (no riot occurred). None of the Pink Angels was arrested. [For more on this, see page 21.]

Charges have since been dismissed against seven of the original group, leaving four still to have their day in court.

I imagine most of you hope these protesters get the book thrown at them. However, you're wrong. In fact, you should hope they get off scot-free.

America has always struggled to protect free speech. In the abstract, the notion of freedom sounds pretty appealing. But when actual words are spoken, feelings hurt and tempers flare, we want to rein it in. Our desire to restrain unpalatable speech — and thereby making it not, technically, free — has resulted in the idea of "hate speech."

However, harassment is in the ear of the beholder, and students have been accused of hate speech for merely expressing irritation. At the University of Pennsylvania in 1993, a Jewish student was frustrated because the loud behavior of some black women outside his dorm room made it hard for him to study. After calling them a Yiddish term for "water buffalo," he was charged with harassment, even though the term has no racial undertones. Criminalizing ordinary give-and-take between parties denigrates authentic victims of abuse by watering down the term "harassment" to a point of absurdity.

The inconvenient thing about hate speech prohibitions is that there's no such thing as "free speech for me and not for thee." Interestingly, one of the first cases brought up under the so-called hate speech restrictions at the University of Wisconsin was by a white guy who was offended that a black female student called him a redneck.

Similarly, if the protesters at the Outfest parade are convicted of a hate crime, the court decision can and will be applied across the board. Anyone who believes that hate speech prosecution will be limited to the speech they dislike is deluding themselves. If the legal test for hate speech is applied broadly enough in the Outfest case, it could set a precedent for other types of protests to be criminalized as "ethnic intimidation" or "hate speech," including gay rights rallies (especially those that specifically target perceived religious intolerance) and political protests (including signs at last year's GOP convention that read, "Get Your Rosaries off my Ovaries").

In fact, some of the letters to the editor this paper received in response to my previous Slants would be legally punishable. I've been called a "shit-brained warmonger" and a "right-wing Christian lunatic." One tolerant liberal said I should be "banished from public discourse entirely."

He was wrong. And so are those who want these Christian protesters to be punished to the full extent of the law. The answer to "offensive" speech is not to outlaw it, but rather to counter it with better speech and better ideas. Ultimately, it takes more grit and initiative to actually counter "bad" speech, than it does to watch the cops take care of the problem for you.

Nancy French is not a lunatic. If you would like to respond to this Slant or submit one of your own (750 words), contact Duane Swierczynski, City Paper, 123 Chestnut St., Third floor, Phila., Pa., 19106 or e-mail Duane Swierczynski.