Hated speech

For all that I am a non-confrontational believer in polite discussion of controversial issues, I’ve never been enamored by “hate speech” laws. They far too easily go from an encouragement of civil discourse to an enforcement of political correctness to a suppression of uncomfortable or unpopular speech.

Take this current example from the UK: Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology ‘cult’ | World news | guardian.co.uk 

The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church’s £23m headquarters near St Paul’s cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was “abusive and insulting”.

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: “I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: ‘Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.’

“‘Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector.”

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and “strongly advised” him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a “cult” which was “corrupt, sinister and dangerous”.

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.

I’m no particular fan of Scientiology, mind you — though I’d not be inclined to call it a “cult,” either (a “scam” would be more like it). But for someone to call it a cult, quote a court ruling that it was a cult, and to be cited for using “abusive and insulting” speech, strikes me as just wrong, and as “abusive and insulting” as the speech the police sought to suppress.

After all, where is the line in determining if speech is “abusive and insulting” — aside from some police officer or prosecutor or judge’s opinion? Would it be “abusive and insulting” to call Scientology “wrong” or “dangerous” or “a scam”? If one wishes to protest against Scientology, how does one know where to limit protest signs? Can only only say, “I disapprove of Scientology, though not in any abusive or insulting fashion”? Or would it be “abusive and insulting” to protest against Scientology (or the Church of England, or the Parliament, or Dow Chemicals, or anything in particular) in any fashion?

Of course, there may be more to this than just zealously polite police officers.

The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology.

The City of London Chief Superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for “raising the spiritual wealth of society” during the opening of its headquarters in 2006.

Last year a video praising Scientology emerged featuring Ken Stewart, another of the City of London’s chief superintendents, although he is not a member of the group.

Which just makes it clearer to me why these sorts of laws and regulations are more dangerous than the speech they seek to avert.