In a time of great social divide, especially with the explosive rise in hateful rhetoric from both sides of the political spectrum, the concept of free speech as a fundamental right in Western society has become subject to recent criticism.
The debate regarding when one’s utilization of free speech becomes hate speech under the law has come in full force, as groups and pundits such as Antifa, University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, and others have driven the discussion to the forefront of socio-political talking points.
It is a topic of debate that is of utmost importance the effect of free speech on daily life, but it can be defined rather easily.
Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the individual’s “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication” from government intervention. It is considered to be a fundamental freedom according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself.
The free speech versus hate speech debate becomes an issue when one’s right to freedom of speech is abused—an event that maintains frequency today. After all, the section-one reasonable limits clause of the Charter states that all rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits, explicitly laying out the possibility for the restriction of section 2(b) rights.
While this may be true, the consensus standard at which speech may be legally considered hate speech is far too low. Simply because certain words may be offensive does not mean they should be restricted by the state. That does not mean the individual cannot be criticized, labeled as a hateful individual or even be ostracized by society, but having the state compel speech sets dangerous precedent. It is a precursor for fascism.
In accordance with the most widely-accepted social contract theories, it is a responsibility of the state to protect its citizens.
However, extending the meaning of “protecting” to include the government protection of personal emotional well-being is preposterous, as feelings themselves are subjective experiences.
Protecting citizens from hateful speech is the responsibility of the organized and collective society alone, which they can do via public exclusion.
A society made up of free individuals is less prone to ruling tyrannically than that of the state given the vast delegation of power. A centralized state empowered to compel speech has the power to do so by holding citizens at a proverbial gunpoint through coercion.
Enabling the government to compel speech that does not explicitly encourage violence puts the application of freedom of speech at risk, as it may become a weapon to enforce specific political and religious views over others.
The requirement for banning hate speech while also allowing for free speech has a balance at the point where the standard of literal violent speech versus non-violent speech is found. Otherwise, the standard can be considered ambiguous and subjective from person-to-person.
There are many viewpoints, both politically and personally, that I find distasteful. Some views are offensive to certain individuals or groups that I may or may not identify with. But, that does not mean mine or anyone else’s emotional well-being should be placed above the freedoms outlined in section 2(b) of the Charter.
This is not an endorsement of hateful rhetoric, but a call for governments to put down the gun held against freedom of speech. It is a call to individuals to hold others to account for their words and actions if they find them offensive, while simultaneously ensuring the state’s potential for compelling speech is restricted.
