So how do you define hate speech?

Your editorial is spot on. If the CDC proposes to ban hate speech first and then define it later, it is putting the cart before the horse. It would be the height of legislative irresponsibility to prohibit an activity before telling us exactly what that activity is.

Defining hate speech (which I presume includes writing) in a way that will encompass all possible future situations will be very tricky, and I wish the CDC the best of luck in that endeavour. Suppose, for instance, a despotic government were to come to power and establish a board of censors for newspapers. They might look at your “Letters” column for January 18 and think like this:  “Guy Baker (‘Call the garbage man and take that “Hebdo” trash out’) says that Charlie Hebdo is a piece of trash. He’s inciting hatred of Charlie Hebdo. To the gallows with him! He also says that thoughtless non-Muslims are today’s biggest terrorist threat. He’s inciting hatred of thoughtless non-Muslims. Forget the gallows, bring out the firing squad!”

The censors might then turn their benign eye to David Brown’s lament that he cannot find size 46 shoes in Thailand (“Find me a big shoe shop”). “Aha!” they might chortle. “David Brown is inciting hatred of Thai shoe shops; and, by implication, hatred of all Thais who have smaller feet than he has, which means most of them. The gallows and the firing squad are both too good for him: crucify him!”    

Sound absurd? Yes, but not beyond the reach of the imagination.  Your editorial asks, “Who gets to define what constitutes hate speech?” If the CDC proposes legislation to ban it, they do. If they can’t do that, they would be wise to abandon the proposed law entirely.

A Reader