When Hate Speech Justifies Killing

by Jim Wallis 06-11-2009

Words have consequences. In the past few weeks, we have seen just how dire those consequences can be. On Sunday, May 31^st, Scott Roeder entered Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita in Kansas and shot Dr. George Tiller point blank in the head. Yesterday, Stephen T. Johns, a security guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum opened the door for 88 year old James W. von Brunn. Von Brunn, a white supremacist who ran a Web site to promote his hatred of Blacks and Jews, proceeded to take several steps into the museum when he opened fire with a rifle and killed Officer Johns before he was gunned down by two other security guards.

These two killings, so close together, raise some troubling questions: When does civil disagreement become uncivil discourse? When does that uncivil discourse become hate speech? And when does that hate speech become the framework of justification for people like Scott Roeder and James W. von Brunn to kill?

Those who become suicide bombers, assassinate judges, kill doctors, or open fire on security guards all have a framework of justification in their minds of why what they are doing is not only necessary, but also the right thing to do. Hate speech, whether it is found on fringe Web sites or spouted by radio talk show hosts or cable TV commentators builds an edifice of hatred in the minds of extreme or unsound individuals that leads to their actions.

As Americans, we all cherish our First Amendment Right to the freedom of speech, even if that means we have to hear or allow the expression of views and opinions that horrify us and even the vast majority of people. Government censorship and the abridgment of these rights is not the answer to hate speech. Societal censorship, public outcry, and condemnation of these words is what’s necessary.

I am not normally for the old practice of “shunning,” the practice of deliberately and habitually avoiding association with a group or individual. But these recent events make me think it is time we consider shunning those who propagate the hate speech that provides the framework of justification for these heinous acts. It is time to publically walk away from those who are committing these kinds of social sins and encourage others to do the same.

Jim Wallis is CEO of Sojourners.

Categories: Activism, Faith and Politics, Violence and Nonviolence

FilmDoctor

I would like to know what specific "radio talk show hosts," and how specifically, are engaging in "hate speech"? This kind of fuzzy wording, which is itself, arguably, a form of hate speech, is typical of Mr. Wallis. He obviously needs to take some refresher courses in logic and biblical hermeneutics. Tom Snyder, Ph.D., Simi Valley, CA. See www.americanvision.org for real logic, factual history, true justice, and real biblical hermeneutics.

JohnH54

You'll be listening to the sound of crickets for a long time before Jim Wallis ever responds to a question like that.

I was just getting ready to ask him the same question: what "radio talk show host" advocated or suggested the killing of someone at the Holocaust Museum or any Jew for that matter? Jim Wallis will never answer that question because there are none that do this. You'll find a lot more of that kind of anti-semitism that would give justification to such a heinous act in the fever swamps of places like the Huffington Post.

Lord_Voldemort

While Wallis has been maddeningly vague at times, I'm inclined to cut him a little bit of slack here. For one thing, I don't really see him trying to pin these crimes on conservatives, not even in a backhand way. Conservatives may be stronger on talk radio but the left certainly has its fringe web sites and cable commentators. Second, I don't see a call to censorship, in fact he explictly rejects it.

I think he is calling for Christians to model reasonable discourse, which is hard to argue with. His idea of shunning people or groups who are particularly prone to use overheated rhetoric is certainly consistent with both Christianity and the principles of free speech.

The devil's in the details of course. Censorship is always a temptation and can creep back into the thinking of those who profess respect for freedom of speech. One man's hate speech can be another man's plain truth, so drawing the line is always going to be complicated. For any of this to work we'll all need to exhibit humility and a commitment to truth on all sides.

And that, among other things, means that Jim Wallis is entitled to a bit of benefit of the doubt. Vague or not, I don't see him trying to scapegoat conservatives here or cut off first-amendment rights.

LV

Eric77

I agree with Wallis' basic premise - that as Christians we should watch how we conduct ourselves and our language so that we will glorify God in our thoughts, words, and actions. And we should also watch out for who we associate with.

I just wish Wallis would be more specific here. He's making pretty strong accusations without mentioning who he's talking about. And I don't know if I'm ready to give him the benefit of the doubt for two reasons:

1) He left out the killing of Pvt. Long, which would have fit perfectly into his argument. Why?

2) He held up Rev. Wright has a prophet instead of "shunning" him despite the extreme and inflammatory rhetoric he uses. And now we have Wright's antisemitic comments. I'm lead to believe that Wallis is much more willing to call out the "extremists" on what he perceives is the other political side than those on his own side.

Again, I think it would have been very helpful if Wallis had been more specific about what is "hate speech" that should be shunned by providing examples from both sides of the political spectrum.

1Grace

I listen to Air America on my home from work , and it must not be listened to by many people because some of things I hear are way over the top. Mike Malloy was speaking the other day about if we had another Civil war he would have no problem killing folks like Hannity, O'Reilly etc .

Their was a murder the other day where an alleged Muslim Fanatic killed a recruiter in Arkansas. The only reason I heard it was people were talking about why it had not been on the mainstream news yet.

Pdaughter is being joked about getting knocked up by a NY Yankee ,player Letterman is calling Palen slutty on his top ten list, It was defended by the View Gals .Are women defended only when politically expedient?

I think what bothers me is that I would agree many times with what I hear on Conservative radio as being way over the line , Obama's Birth Certificate stuff etc . Michael Savage is disgusting . Its what happens on the mainstream media that everyone thinks is OK is what is bothersome. The lines of civility are so different and based more on political /world views then what our Mothers and Fathers use to just teach us.

xfree9

I think your observations are correct. And you're right, nobody listens to Air[head]America... that's why they went bankrupt last year (or thereabouts) and had to restructure.

BlueDeacon

It would take an entire paragraph to give specific names and instances, but David Brock of Media Matters for America actually documents them when they happen -- his group is so thorough and effective that some of these same people denounce it as a "left-wing" hate group. I'd say that Wallis is on pretty solid ground.

JohnH54

A whole paragraph? I think the meta here will support it. The challenge remains: show me one talk show host who advocates the killing of Jews?

BlueDeacon

It wasn't just Jews that von Brunn hated. We're working on a story about him now.

Lord_Voldemort

Hey, speaking of von Brunn, did you hear the latest? The Weekly Standard might have been one of his targets. Isn't that something?

LV

BlueDeacon

It's more likely Commentary, which is basically Jewish.

xfree9

Who is "we"?

Trent

It is not necessary for someone to directly advocate killing for their speech to be hate speech.
If their speech dehumanises an individual or group; if their speech criminalises an individual or group; if their speech suggests or calls for the removal of the individual or group; or if it does all of these together - then it's probably hate speech.
One of the tactics of war is to reduce your opponent to being less than fully/equally human. This enables your supporters to take action against them that they would not consider against someone of equal worth.

WaveTossed

"It is not necessary for someone to directly advocate killing for their speech to be hate speech.
If their speech dehumanises an individual or group; if their speech criminalises an individual or group; if their speech suggests or calls for the removal of the individual or group; or if it does all of these together - then it's probably hate speech."

I agree that there are many kinds of hate speech. Being Lesbian, I've experienced hate speech first hand. However, passing laws against hate speech (however it is defined) only makes the poison hidden rather than out in the open.

As Christians, people can speak out against hateful speech, counteract it with love. Remember Jesus' Two Great Commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself.

xfree9

I think your definition or description of hate speech is a good one, though I'd qualify that dehumanizing a "group" is not possible because a group is not a person. I know what you mean by the phrase, however, so let me explain a bit. Anything that is dehumanizing must be, by definition, talking about a human being. A black person who is dehumanized is dehumanized precisely because she is not treated as in individual made in God's image (or made with value, whatever your philosophical bent is). If one looks at a gay person for being "gay" and not for being that particular person God created, that is dehumanizing. I'm not a collectivist, so I try to see the world full of persons, not groups. When somebody tries to collectivize, they are robbing the individuals of their inherent image of God, and treating them as less than individuals.

Hate speech goes one step further and continues down the road of dehumanizing openly, rather than with prejudice or racism. It's speech design to declare this or that group of persons as not mere persons but as a group to be identified and understood outside each's value as a human being made in the image of God.

That's a long rambling way of saying it. Suffice it to say I agree with you, but wanted to elaborate my way of understanding it.

xfree9

his group is so thorough and effective that some of these same people denounce it as a "left-wing" hate group.

How sad you assume this about Media Matters. I've actually visited the site several times, and every time I've investigated the context of what they were claiming, Media Matters was way off in its assessment. I don't read every article, so maybe I got a bunch of bad ones, so I'll leave it at that.

Wallis is on no solid ground by including talk shows with people with hate speech. I will give him the benefit of the doubt since he didn't use the phrase "right-wing talk show," which is a step in the right direction.

BlueDeacon

Coming from someone who openly identifies himself as a
libertarian/conservative, your response should not surprise me. I guess you
wouldn't believe anything he writes in his books about the conservative
movement, of which he was a major part? (When Rush and O'Reilly start bashing
them on the air -- simply for mirroring their comments -- I would say they're
being pretty effective.)

xfree9

Correction: I identify myself as a Christian who believes that freedom should be a guaranteed right of every human. Call it libertarian, anarchist, whatever. We were created with freedom of the will, or as Jefferson said, "When God gave us life, he gave us liberty with it."

"Conservative"? Nah... I sympathize just cuz that's the direction I came from. So while I attack your critiques, I attack them on the grounds that you can't see out of the left-right paradigm, not because your critiques are actually wrong.

Trent

I'll provide one example - a sample of Bill O'Reilly's hate speech against Tiller:
"In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000." "If we allow Dr. George Tiller and his acolytes to continue, we can no longer pass judgment on any behavior by anybody." "If we allow this, America will no longer be a noble nation."
There's more where that came from.
Obviously according to your logic I'm engaging in hate speech against O'Reilly by quoting him.
(PS isn't 'Servanthood Dominion' an oxymoron?)

Lord_Voldemort

I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it.

To see why, substitute "Guantanamo Bay" for abortion. I'm pretty sure Obama himself said that Gitmo undermines our moral authority, our ability to condemn civil rights violations by other nations, and made us a less noble society -- in other words, pretty much the essence of what O'Reilly said about abortion.

Strong disagreement is not hate speech. Try again.

LV

Trent

I'm going to assume you're joking. But on the off chance you're not let's consider the two comparisons and lets agree that strong disagreement is not hate speech.

O'Reilly's comments were not about the evils of abortion - instead they targetted an individual and called him an executioner and murderer; I'd challenge you to find Obama degrading any individual in that manner (in fact the support he gave to operatives who implemented torture would speak to the opposite).

O'Reilly went on to suggest that 'we' cannot allow Tiller to continue. Obama also likes to use 'we.' But when the President speaks of 'we' he is speaking of the nation and of action the government will take on behalf of the nation; when O'Reilly speaks of 'we' he is speaking of his audience and of actions the audience members will take. Given that the audience are probaly not a unified group he is speaking of the need for individual action.

And lo and behold an individual took action, provided 'justice' for the 'murderer' and took steps to ensure America remained a noble nation.' hmmm.

Sorry, LV. I 'strongly disagree' with you and it's not hate speech, but I'm not abusing you, belittling you, dehumanising you or calling you a criminal. O'Reilly was. Big Difference.

Lord_Voldemort

Since George Bush was largely held accountable for establishing Guantanamo, I think we've identified a culprit. And since Obama called for Gitmo to be shut down, I think we've established that, in his opinion, Bush could not be allowed to continue.

So no, I'm not kidding, and no, you haven't found any big dissimilarities.

LV