Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As much as I wish I could take credit for this gem, it belongs to Andrew Breitbart, who passed away in 2012. He was a man who was spared the usual posthumous waiting period before his legacy was trashed by former employees and subordinates.
Last week, the Anti-Defamation League released a report detailing the rise in anti-Semitism on Twitter. The results, not at all surprising to anyone with an account, show anti-Semitism is becoming more common. Moreover, among the Jewish journalists most often targeted, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was at the top of the list.
Shapiro, commonly targeted by the nastiest people and content creators the internet has to offer, has developed a much better way of dealing with this sort of tripe than is commonly proposed.
Often, and particularly on the left, we see those on the receiving end attempting to have speech they find offensive silenced. Most disturbingly, this thinking has even reached the UN, which calls on members to prosecute online harassment and prohibit hate speech. Such nebulously defined legal concepts are to free speech what fire is to paper.
Rather than trying to shut down those that target him, Shapiro retweets them, often with humorous, snide comments. Rather than quitting Twitter because of the hate, he brings attention to it, simultaneously bringing awareness to the problem and exposing the absurdity of such views.
Shapiro’s approach is superior in every way. Sunlight and publicity really are the best ways of debunking heinous beliefs. Additionally, no threat to political speech and expression is posed through this process.
Compare Shapiro’s approach to that of most European countries; hate speech laws. Recently we have seen a mainstream politician, Geert Wilders, prosecuted in the Netherlands for speaking against immigration and a comedian fined in Canada for making a rude joke about the handicapped.
The logical leaps required to embrace hate speech legislation are many. These laws of petty tyranny ask supporters to believe some ideas are too damaging for the public discourse, open debate is ineffective for defeating them, restriction on thought and expression will not be abused by those in power, and outlawing such ideas stops people from uttering or thinking them.
Sure.
Few people realize the extent to which the American approach to speech issues differs from that of other Western countries, even our cousins in the Anglosphere.
Most nations embrace hate speech laws to varying degrees, something prohibited by Supreme Court precedent here.
In this regard, America is already great. Be wary of politicians promising to re-litigate First Amendment precedent, especially when such precedent involved movies critical of said politicians.
When you open the Constitution up like this, don’t be surprised if you get burned before the fire is put out. Stick to the sunlight and retweets — they really are better.
