People willing to empower the state to punish a wide and ambiguous range of conduct — say, "offensive speech" — generally try to address concerns about abuse with pragmatic arguments. "There's no way the government will have the time or resources to punish all offensive speech," they say, "so they'll only go after the worst of the worst."
The problem, of course, is that the people exercising this discretion are (1) human and (2) bureaucrats, and therefore can be expected to exercise their discretion not to punish some objective Platonic ideal of the "worst of the worst" conduct, but to pick and choose battles based on their personal, cultural, irrational prejudices, informed strongly by which political and social groups hold the most power in their sphere of influence at the moment.
Hence under Canada's entirely thuggish and loathsome Human Rights Commission system, bureaucrats — who previously vigorously prosecuted a Christian preacher for spouting nasty Biblically-derived anti-gay rhetoric, culminating in an order that the preacher can never again "disparage" gays — can now decline to pursue Muslim publications saying that gays ought to be killed, infidels are inferior, Jews are evil, etc. The HRC's rationale is transparently bogus; it claims that the Muslim publication singles out groups like women and gays and "infidels", not individuals — yet the preacher's screed was just as vague.
The truth is that the HRC, like any body empowered by the people to pursue "offensive speech," is guided by its own particular constellation of beliefs. One of those beliefs is that Christian "hate speech" is scary and dangerous and Muslim "hate speech" is not. (This is closely related to the belief, deeply cherished in academia and by people who act as if they are in academia, that only white conduct towards non-whites can be racist.) It would be just as easy to imagine a new pack of bureaucrats who believed the opposite. How to govern such discretion? Don't give it to them in the first place. Duh!
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- How The University of Chicago Could Have Done A Better Job Defending Free Speech - August 29th, 2016
- Gawker, Money, Speech, And Justice - August 18th, 2016
- Lawsplainer: No, Donald Trump's "Second Amendment" Comment Isn't Criminal - August 9th, 2016
- Why Openness About Mental Illness is Worth The Effort And Discomfort - August 9th, 2016
- A Rare Federal Indictment For Online Threats Against Game Industry - July 28th, 2016