Stevens Blogpost 8

 In the Introduction chapter, Brettschneider considers what types of free speech should be protected under a democratic government. Brettschneider argues that we should distinguish a state’s coercive power, the ability to restrict the expression of certain hateful views, from the state’s expressive power, the ability to influence beliefs by “speaking” to hateful groups directly. By protecting the expression of hateful views but also recognizing the state’s obligation to speak out against them, Brettschneider believes the state can both avoid falling into the free speech paradox and protect the democratic rights of all its citizens.

 

One of my concerns with Brettschneider’s argument is that if the state speaks outs against some hate speech, it will end up tacitly approving the speech it does not condemn. If the state recognizes and condemns racist anti-Black rhetoric, but then fails to condemn (whether for political reasons or general ineptitude) say, anti-immigrant hate speech that directly harms Latino minorities, then I worry the state’s silence could inadvertently give more (false) credence to the anti-immigrant views. Similarly, I’m also concerned that the state could direct its persuasive power towards undeserving targets. Recently, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis explicitly banned Critical Race Theory (including some of Cheryl Harris’ work) from the state’s curriculum (although local districts can still choose to add it, for now). DeSantis blasted CRT in his press release saying it taught kids “to hate their country and hate one another”. This is just one example where I worry an increase in the state’s persuasive power could be used to misclassify certain legitimate speech as hate speech.

 

It also seems unlikely that in the Hateful Society, as Brettschneider describes it, the prejudice and hateful attitudes of its citizens would not also seep into the state’s values and definitions of hate speech. While certain aspects of the government are insulated enough to stand against the wrongful attitudes of society (the Supreme Court), the parts of the state most suited for persuasive power (Congress and the Executive) are subject to the most influence from society’s opinions and attitudes. Even if the unified state did speak out against the dominant attitudes, I’m not sure the people would find it especially persuasive compared to the voices of other intellectual or social leaders. Especially given Americans’ general distrust of government and dislike of any vague form of paternalism.