Hate Speech

Supporting Laws Banning Hate Speech Means Supporting Police Raids on People’s Homes

Germany violently enforces the law by busting into dozens of households to prevent a "climate of fear".

|

SWAT team
Martin Brayley

If you hate the way police in the United States abuse, threaten, and sometimes kill citizens during routine law enforcement, and you also oppose hate speech and want the government to ban it, take note of how Germany enforces its hate speech laws: They send police to raid people's homes and arrest them.

This week German police, in a coordinated effort, raided the homes of 36 people accused of violating the country's hate speech laws. From The New York Times:

Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office, whose officers conducted home searches and interrogations. But the raids also targeted two people accused of left-wing extremist content, as well as one person accused of making threats or harassment based on someone's sexual orientation.

"The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action," Holger Münch, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said in a statement. "Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet."

Nothing helps prevent a "climate of fear" like police officers busting into dozens of people's homes because they said things the government has outlawed, am I right, folks?

Americans who want to create an exception that "hate speech" not be protected by the First Amendment often point to Europe and insist countries with such speech bans are no less free for it.

On the theory alone, they're wrong. Prohibiting offensive messages is an imposition on freedom, regardless of whether one favors the laws. You are inherently less free when you face criminal penalties for saying certain things.

In practice, we see the obvious truth of hate speech law enforcement: gangs of police officers breaking into people's homes and charging them with crimes. In the context of America's struggles to hold police officers accountable for violent or reckless misconduct, the enforcement of hate speech laws in America would get people killed.

And if people think the victims will be those alt-right folks, they're just not paying attention. It's undoubtedly going to be some minority teen who recklessly tweets "Kill Whitey" in response to some news item of the day.

Yesterday we noted the government's tendency to unfairly apply speech regulations to benefit the powerful over the disenfranchised is a great reason not to give government power to determine hate speech. We have plenty of other examples showing how hate speech laws would actually play out in the hands of our government.

Several years ago the mayor of Peoria arranged for the police to raid the home of a man who made a Twitter account parodying him. After news of the raid went viral, the mayor showed absolutely no remorse for the absurd reason behind it and insisted he was the one who had his freedom of speech trampled.

Politicians would like nothing better than to possess the means to punish those who make fun of them. The local college diversity committee wouldn't be meting out punishment. The politicians would.

Look at what's happening to hate crime laws. People enacted these laws allegedly to protect minorities from violence based on their identities. Now states have added law enforcement as a protected class, and police are calling for sentencing punishments for those who say mean things about them when they are arrested.

It's reckless to think that hate speech laws won't end up in a similar place. Eventually we'll see police raiding people's homes for tweeting mean things about them. The kernel of this is contained in tweets from a police inspector in Sussex, England, who did not like people making fun of a rainbow-colored cop car.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

63 responses to “Supporting Laws Banning Hate Speech Means Supporting Police Raids on People’s Homes

  1. “Americans who want to create an exception that “hate speech” not be protected by the First Amendment often point to Europe and insist countries with such speech bans are no less free for it.”

    Oh, yeah? Try yelling “HITLER!” in a crowed theater; people would die by the hundreds racing for the exits!

    1. But micro-aggressions! pussies

  2. Don’t want to get shot by police? Don’t speak.

    1. Don’t want to get shot by cops? Get them disarmd.

      1. Want to have total chaos? Disarm them.

  3. take note of how Germany enforces its hate speech laws: They send police to raid people’s homes and arrest them.

    Yes, that’s how laws work. Every law, no matter how petty, carries with it the possibility that armed men will drag you away and possibly kill you for noncompliance.

  4. ‘I just heard somebody say ‘cuck.’ MOVE IN! MOVE IN NOW!’

    Welp, bye, SIV.

    1. Well now I’m conflicted

    2. ‘I WAS SAYING CLUCK! CLUCK!”

  5. Supporting Laws Banning Hate Speech Means Supporting Police Raids on People’s Homes

    When you’re with your progressive friends, continue to press home the idea that their vision requires a sizable domestic army to enforce their views.

    1. In my experience that results in changed subjects more often than changed minds, but i shall endeavor to persevere.

      1. It’s amazing how often I’m told my shoe is untied.

        1. Paul, several fruitless minutes later: “Wait a minute, i’m wearing Crocs.”

          1. “Wearing Crocs is like being blow by a dude. It feels great, but then you look down and realize you’re gay.” -Adam Carolla.

    2. “So what will you do when at least 50% of the country doesn’t want to bend to your will?”

      1. Camping trips for at least 50% of the population, duh. It’s literally what happens every time.

        1. Yeah, but the work of disarming that 50% isn’t going well. When I was first beginning to follow politics, in the 1970’s, it was a widely believed article of faith that handguns would be banned within a decade. Didn’t happen. In fact, since then the majority of States have gone to “Must Issue” on concealed carry (or laws even more liberal to gun owners) and the march to repeal gun control continues apace.

          The Warsaw Ghetto held out for four months, with next to nothing. Flyover Country is better armed and much harder to surround. Attempts to ’round up’ holdouts won’t go at all well.

  6. This week German police, in a coordinated effort, raided the homes of 36 people accused of violating the country’s hate speech laws.

    Do you know who else thought German police should raid German homes because German citizens had the wrong thoughts?

    1. Hasselhoff?

    2. Markus Wolf?

    3. Trudeau?

    4. Barack Obama?

  7. “Americans who want to create an exception that “hate speech” not be protected by the First Amendment often point to Europe and insist countries with such speech bans are no less free for it.”

    Do they even hear themselves? Banning things makes you no less free? Is this the time to say fuck off slaver?

    1. I was recently shocked to find out how many European countries still have blasphemy laws.

      1. That’s… not that shocking at all, actually.

        1. Considering that many still have established churches, no it is not.

    2. “Is this the time to say fuck off slaver?”

      No, The slavers were white. This is the time to say fuck off nigger.

      1. Cool, racist AND completely unaware of context. You’re a winner.

        1. “You’re a winner.”

          No, the winners are Libertarians. Whatever success they’ve enjoyed in the past has been due to their enthusiastic teaming up with racists.

          1. See, that doesn’t even make sense. You’re just typing stuff. Are you high? If so, can i buy drugs from you?

            1. “See, that doesn’t even make sense.”

              It was sarcasm. Defending racist speech is not a winning strategy, any more than defending South Africa’s apartheid regime was.

              1. “Defending racist speech is not a winning strategy,”

                Opposing government from having the ability to arrest people for “racist” speech isn’t defending racist speech.

                “any more than defending South Africa’s apartheid regime was.”

                Yes because opposing authoritarian government action is just like supporting authoritarian governments. (eye roll)

                Folks like you make me appreciate my liberal friends who actually are consistent defenders of free speech. Unlike you they actually realize that being offended by a person’s speech, doesn’t mean that person should be arrested.

              2. So you must think that when the Supreme Court allowed a neo-nazi (National Socialist) group to march in Skokie, IL, years ago, that it meant the Supreme Court justices were really secret neo-nazis (National Socialists).

                Also, you just equated defending freedom (free speech) with defending South Africa’s apartheid regime.

                Please tell me you’re high on coke or something, and not in your normal state of mind.

      2. Factually speaking the slavers were black, depending at what point in the supply chain you want to point out. Obviously, your issue was with the retailers and not the suppliers for some reason.

        1. Beat me to it.

          The “Slavers” by and large were black, but some of their customers were white.

          1. GET OUT OF MY MIND, SQUARE!

            ^_^

        2. “Factually speaking the slavers were black,”

          Sorry to offend your delicate sensitivities. Whites obviously could never be slavers.

          1. This is an interesting point.

            In the African slave trade the people who took people as slaves were usually black, or Arabic–they were the suppliers, the ‘slavers’–without them there’d be no ‘slave trade’

            White people were among the customers of the slavers–what would you call that? Slaveowners? They don’t enslave, they buy people who’ve already been enslaved.

            1. So, only the sellers are slavers. If that makes you feel better about the whole sorry situation, then why not?

            2. Like any type of industry, there were businesses engaged in production, transport, wholesale and retail. Sometimes more than one aspect.

    1. beautiful.

    2. I like how the cops have numbered helmets like baseball players.

      “Who cracked your skull?”
      “I think it was C11 but it might have been C12.”
      “case dismissed for lack of evidence, unreliable witness.”

      1. That’s for the scoring & assists.

  8. Yesterday we noted the government’s tendency to unfairly apply speech regulations to benefit the powerful over the disenfranchised is a great reason not to give government power to determine hate speech.

    Except that’s a bit of a red herring, isn’t it? I mean, who a law winds up targeting might be a practical reason not to have the law, but it shouldn’t be a basis in and of itself. How about not restricting free speech because restricting free speech is bullying and thuggish in and of itself? It would be nice if people could try to remember (not accusing Shackford of this) that something doesn’t switch from acceptable to unacceptable simply because of who it is done to.

    1. When you remember that people who advocate for hate speech laws tend to be the same folks who want to be seen supporting the traditionally disenfranchised, pointing out that they’re actually hurting the people who they really want to champion makes tactical sense.

  9. “Germany violently enforces the law by busting into dozens of households to prevent a “climate of fear”.”

    Nothing quells a climate of fear better than armed Germans bursting into your house.

  10. >>>”climate of fear”

    Isn’t Merkel from the Germany that wore red soccer unis?

  11. I love that they never EVER ask themselves “Who defines hate speech?”

    Because the Prog snowflakes, with their whining about “white privilege” and “male privilege” are far more openly hateful than the people they despise.

    And we outnumber them, too.

    If only popular speech is protected, a First Amendment is not needed. Nobody really bitches about popular speech.

  12. Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office, whose officers conducted home searches and interrogations.

    Stop, Scott. Progressive’s penises can only get so erect.


  13. Nothing helps prevent a “climate of fear” like police officers busting into dozens of people’s homes because they said things the government has outlawed, am I right, folks?

    *gives Scott a high-five* Totes, bra’!


    1. And if people think the victims will be those alt-right folks, they’re just not paying attention. It’s undoubtedly going to be some minority teen who recklessly tweets “Kill Whitey” in response to some news item of the day.

      Oh, but dude, everyone know’s that black people can’t be racists or say hateful things. Much like how ‘the gays’ can’t sexually discriminate. These are known facts, and if you’re unaware of those than I would submit that we need to report you for hate-speech! ^_-

  14. After arrest, I guess they will load them onto trains for a quick shower.

  15. The people who want ‘hate’ speech punished would have absolutely no problem at all with agents of the state breaking in and taking the speakers of hate to task. No problem with that at all. Hell, they’d probably volunteer to do it.

    Bad address? Wrong person? Oh well, can’t make an omelet…. right?

  16. Germany is one of those EU countries which has imprisoned a bunch of generally old people for questioning some aspect of the “holocaust” dogma .

  17. Germany is one of those EU countries which has imprisoned a bunch of generally old people for questioning some aspect of the “holocaust” dogma .

  18. Germany is one of those EU countries which has imprisoned a bunch of generally old people for questioning some aspect of the “holocaust” dogma .

    1. So is Canada. Except for the EU bit.

  19. Americans who want to make a “Hate Speech” exception to the First Amendment think they will always have the State on their side. This proves that they are complete imbeciles.

  20. Legal thuggery in Germany and much of the EU.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.