Hate Speech, Private Violence, and the Constitution

     Over the last few days domestic terrorists have committed three murders – three political assassinations – in the United States.  Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion fanatic, killed Dr. George Tiller in Witchita, Kansas; Carlos Bledsoe (Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad), a radical muslim, killed army recruiter William Long in Little Rock, Arkansas, and James von Brunn, a white supremacist, birther, and holocaust denier, killed security guard Stephen Jones at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.  These events confirm the report of the Department of Homeland Security "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" predicting an upswing in acts of domestic terrorism and the Southern Poverty Law Center's studies (Intelligence Report, map of hate groups, reports of incidents of hate crimes) finding that there has been more than a 50% increase in the number of active hate groups in the United States since the year 2000.  What does the Constitution have to say about this, and what can we do about it?

     Terrorist actions are fueled by hate speech.  The individuals who murdered Dr. Tiller, Private Long, and Mr. Jones were all encouraged and motivated to act by extremist speech.  In an article for Salon Gabriel Winant describes how Fox News host Bill O'Reilly carried on a long campaign of hate against Dr. Tiller, repeatedly calling him a "baby killer" who had "blood on his hands."  Scott Roeder apparently did not understand that Mr. O'Reilly was speaking metaphorically, nor apparently did the other anti-abortion activists who according to the National Abortion Federation have committed 8 murders and forty-one clinic bombings over the past three decades.  According to the F.B.I., the Little Rock shooter Carlos Bledsoe traveled to Yemen to learn hate.  Muslim extremists chant "Death to America" and teach converts like Bledsoe and militants like Mohammed Atta that all Americans are complicit in crimes against the muslim world.  Like Roeder, Bledsoe apparently took these claims quite literally.  Yesterday's domestic terrorist not only listened to hate speech, he contributed to it.  Von Brunn authored a post at Free Republic expressing his view that Barack Obama is not an American citizen, a view enthusiatically received by most of the persons who added comments.  According to a post by Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center von Brunn authored an anti-semitic book, ran a racist and anti-semitic website, and had been associated with many members of the far right including William Pierce, the author of the Turner Diaries, the book that inspired militia member Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 Americans and wounding more than 800.

     At first glance the Constitution is not of much help in combatting hate speech or acts of terrorism.  First of all, the Constitution does not prohibit terrorist actions by individuals and private organizations.  The Constitution governs the actions of the government – it has no application to the acts of individuals.  The government itself may attempt to prevent acts of violence by infiltrating hate groups, tracking dangerous individuals, and deterring terrorist activity by prosecuting, incarcerating, and executing persons convicted of terrorism – but the simple fact is that the Constitution by itself does not prohibit crimes by individuals.

     Second, and even more significantly, the Constitution protects hate speech.  Many people are under the impression that "hate speech" is not protected by the First Amendment, but the opposite is in fact true.  In American people are free to express hatred for specific groups or individuals.  And although they run a risk of crossing the line into unprotected speech, people have the right to imply that other people deserve to be killed so long as it is clear that they are neither threatening violence nor encouraging others to acts of violence.  People may be charged with a crime only if the context of the speech makes it clear that the speaker or writer was threatening specific people with violence or was intending to incite other people to commit acts of violence.  Bill O'Reilly's and some other anti-abortion activists' vicious characterizations of Dr. Tiller, the unbalanced expression of Muslim rage against all things American that Bledsoe was exposed to in Yemen, and the racist and anti-semitic rants of von Brunn and other white supremacists are all examples of "hate speech" but they do not constitute either "threats" or "incitement." 

     So what can we do about this?  And what use is the Constitution in combatting the culture of hatred that is growing in our beloved country?

     In my opinion the Constitution is a template – a model – for how we should organize our society and how we should live our lives.  In a comment to the Reverend's recent blog about the military's policy "don't ask – don't tell" policy I agreed with him that the Constitution does not permit the government to enact laws solely to support and reinforce the biases and prejudices of the community.  The Constitution does not countenance hatred.  The government may not enact laws simply because a majority of the people or a majority of the lawmakers dislike a particular group.  Furthermore, the Constitution requires the government to treat people equally, to respect people's religious beliefs and religious practices, to allow people to make choices in their personal lives, and it requires the courts and government agencies to treat people fairly when we appear before them.  Essentially, the Constitution establishes the basic moral rules that the government must follow in its dealings with us.

     When we enact the laws that govern our society we take inspiration from the Constitution.  The Constitution prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of race or gender, and we have adopted civil rights laws that prohibit businesses or individuals from engaging in the same kinds of discrimination.  Many other laws incorporate constitutional principles and require us to act fairly and tolerantly towards each other.

     Finally, even in our personal interactions which are beyond the reach of law we should take our cue from the fundamental principles that the founders of our nation believed in – that all people are created equal – that all people are endowed with inalienable rights – that no-one's life, liberty, or property should be taken away without due process of law.  People have a constitutional right to engage in hate speech, but that does not mean that hate speech is consistent with the fundamental political and moral principles that this country stands for. 

     We all have an obligation to treat each other with respect and tolerance.  On this blog and others we express strong disagreements on matters that are important to us, but we must never lose sight of the fact that most of the people who disagree with us love this country and what it stands for.  There is a small percentage of people who engage in hate speech and when they do we must condemn it.  Hate speech is constitutionally protected but it is fundamentally unamerican.  By refraining from engaging in hate speech and by condemning it whenever it occurs we will remain steadfast to the rule of law and dedicated to the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Tagged as: assassination, carlos bledsoe, constitution, domestic terrorism, First Amendment, hate speech, james von brunn, Rule of Law, scott roeder, terrorism