Our Voice: Stop hate speech by debate, not force

If speech didn’t sometimes trouble us, it wouldn’t need protecting.

It typically is not the popular view that’s at risk of being squelched — it’s the unpopular one.

The First Amendment defends the opinion of the minority and the lone voice. It provides a legal shield even for those with beliefs most of us find shocking, wicked and offensive.

But how far that protection should go is being questioned on a variety of fronts.

We live in the age of Twitter, Facebook, blogs and online comments. People have lost their jobs over careless (or maybe not so careless) comments on social media.

That’s because people assume the First Amendment allows them to say anything they want.

But just because the U.S. Constitution gives broad government protection for free speech rights, doesn’t mean someone won’t face consequences at work. What you say online probably won’t put you in jail — but depending on the circumstances — could still put you in the unemployment line.

Prosser School District recently adopted a new social media policy that allows the district to discipline employees if their social media posts disrupt school activities.

That was in response to the fallout last February after two school employees posted Facebook comments on their immigration views. Their negative words caused an outrage in the community.

They were put on paid administrative leave shortly after the incidents, but have since returned to working with the school district.

Prosser school officials worked with the American Civil Liberties Union to craft the new policy that attempts to balance free speech rights with making sure children feel safe at school.

It seems like a reasonable plan. Educators — like journalists — should be kept to a higher standard when it comes to how they present themselves on social media.

But while some speech restraints make sense in the workplace, that doesn’t mean we should start chipping away at free speech protections in general.

Nationally, there has been some talk of making a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. We understand where this sentiment comes from, but it would take us into dangerous territory.

There already is a narrow exception to free speech — “fighting words” that are likely to lead to violence. But hateful ideas are protected under the First Amendment just like any other idea. The line between the two may be blurry, but it is there.

The recent violence that erupted in Charlottesville, Va., over a Confederate statue — when thousands of white nationalists clashed with counter-protesters, resulting in deaths and injuries — is spurring the debate.

Locally, reports of Confederate flags displayed on personal vehicles in the Benton Franklin Fair & Rodeo parade have sparked some condemnation by Facebook users. A call by one man in Richland to rename Lee Boulevard because it honors Confederate general Robert E. Lee also is triggering emotion-filled discussion in certain circles.

The issues may be uncomfortable, even abhorrent to some. But civil, community debate is healthy.

As it proceeds, Tri-Citians should keep in mind the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed First Amendment protections in a free speech case just last June.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

And Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. … Our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”

Offensive speech is best curtailed by peaceful discourse, not force.

This story was originally published August 23, 2017 at 2:43 PM with the headline "Our Voice: Stop hate speech by debate, not force."