One of the most distrurbing trends is to label speech which is not popular as “hate speech.”

Usually it is conservative speech which gets the label.  We saw it when the Southern Poverty Law Center put the Family Research Council on a list of “hate groups” and threats were made by local government officials to deny business licenses to Chick-fil-A.

This trend is taking place on campuses as well.  But there are dangers of such rules, even when the “hate speech” is coming from anti-Israel activists who seek to intimidate Israeli and pro-Israeli speakers.

From FIRE, a follow up on attempt by the U. Cal. system to implement a “hate speech” policy:

Earlier this month, we brought news that University of California (UC) System President Mark Yudof had received a recommendation to implement a “hate speech” policy from a working group comprised of members of UC’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion. The recommendation asks Yudof to implement policies that fundamentally violate students’ expressive rights—including an outright ban on “hate speech.” The advisory council even states that UC should “accept the challenge” of First Amendment litigation.

FIRE has asked President Yudof to reject that recommendation, and we’re cautiously optimistic about his response. To make our point even clearer, FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Will Creeley recently appeared on ReasonTV.

What more is there to say? Will covers all the bases. Banning hate speech disempowers the very groups the rules are meant to protect, and silencing “bad” speech furthers fear and hatred. The only way to really fight unfavorable speech is with more speech.