To understand why it is absolutely necessary to keep alive the universal bugaboo idiotically referred to as “hate speech,” you have only to watch Russia’s now famous Pussy Riot band in action.

Tweet

Email

Print

By “in action,” of course, I am referring to three thin women in colorful minidresses, their pretty faces hidden behind woolen ski masks. They are performing an anti-Putin song in a Russian Orthodox church—okay, Moscow’s main Orthodox church, where a lot of people, mainly nuns and guards, seem to be upset by what they’re hearing—and what the young women are actually singing, according to Voice of America is a chant that calls on the Virgin Mary to drive Vladimir Putin away forever.

Not, on the whole, a bad idea. But thus far, completely ineffectual.

On the other hand, maybe Pussy Riot should have thought twice. Their maiden—if you’ll excuse the term—church chant took place in February, and, next thing they knew, the band members were incarcerated in Moscow under penal code 213 for “hooliganism” that was “motivated by religious hatred or hostility.”

Which could mean a three-year sentence for Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina, and Yekaterina Samutsevich.

Why such a brutal possibility? The Russian Orthodox Church, which has long bedded down with Putin, begged for jail time for the group, claiming that it was mortally offended by the chant. And Putin, who as president has signed a slew of new laws restricting open speech, probably didn’t have the girls’ Facebook page among his “Likes.” So here they are, the bane of religion, along with Russia’s judicial and the executive branches. Practically the only thing they have on their side is the dubious support of Madonna. Who is possibly not considered a singing nun among the Russian Orthodox heavies.

So how did this all happen?

Because of what is popularly called “hate speech.” As it turns out, everyone everywhere knows for certain what constitutes hate speech, the precursor—as Moscow’s penal code knows full well—of hooliganism. And everyone everywhere is against it. Some want to abolish it. Others to imprison the speakers. Still others—and here I’m referring to the normally admirable Colbert King of the Washington Post—would like to blame hate speech for virtually every outrage and mass murder. In the end, however, attacking whatever one chooses to call “hate speech” really means you’re attacking all speech.

I’m bringing this up not only because the Pussy Riot ladies deserve a pass. But because of late—and by of late I’m referring to the howling about hate speech that erupted ever since six Wisconsin Sikhs were murdered at prayer last week—there seems to be a direct line drawn between speaking freely and killing freely.

“What made [Wade Michael] Page take those innocent lives?” asks King. “Quite likely the motive for the shooting was hate. … It is fair to ask if we are living in a climate that fosters the kind of violence on display Sunday.”

He appears to know whom to blame for that violent climate. “Tune in, for example, to ‘The Rush Limbaugh Show,’” he suggests. “Imagine you are a disaffected skinhead sitting in your room, nursing your resentment at … this country’s steady drift away from all that you hold dear, and you hear this: ‘I think it can now be said, without equivocation … this man hates this country. … Barack Obama is trying to dismantle, brick by brick, the American dream.’”

Well, there are many things I can imagine, but none of them includes either being a disaffected skinhead or a loyal Limbaugh listener. However—a big however—one of the best things about not living in Russia is the option of listening—to anything at all. Of understanding that just because someone despises Obama—is, in fact, untruthful, and stupid about Obama—doesn’t mean he’s endorsing the murder of Sikhs. Or of anyone.

In other words, the moment you dub any speech—smart speech, funny speech, brutal speech, charitable speech, dumb speech— as “hate speech,” the kind of speech that leads inexorably to vicious crimes and general craziness, you are opening the door. And by that I do not mean you are opening the door to an alternative form of discourse, beautifully crafted and brilliant.

You are opening the prison door.

Photo Credit: Denis Bochkarev