This is the basis of an essay written by Charles R. Lawrence III published in a Duke Law journal in Feb of 1990. Lawrence argues that language that is harmful to someone and/or can't be avoided should in no way be protected by the First Amendment. Not only does Lawrence appeal to authority to support his argument, but he also shows how free speech conflicts with the elimination of racism as well as its purpose, to inflict damage.
Lawrence opens up his essay with the purpose of showing that racial speech sends a destructive message to minorities that they are inferior and are in turn, second class citizens. He states that civil libertarians who oppose regulating racist speech have not just overlooked but have declined to "listen to the real victims," and have very little understanding of the harm they have done afflicted. Many others seem to not only agree with Lawrence on the point that racist speech causes minorities to feel inferior but they also suggest that racist speech can also lead to many other serious problems.
In an article written about the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act by
Equalopportunity.com
, the article stated that "racial hatred can lead to physical violence, civil unrest, war, or genocide." They share Lawrence "s belief that "racial hatred causes serious emotional and psychological effects."
As clear as Lawrence is on this point, he nevertheless makes his strongest point supporting this argument when he appeals to authority by bringing up the famous Brown v. Board of Education case which ended racial segregation in schools. He declared that Brown not only held that segregated schools were unequal mainly because of the message it "conveyed" but also that it basically said that "black children were an untouchable caste, unfit to go to school with white children." He supports this by arguing that the case proved that the government is aware of the damage racism can cause to a person and that it took legal steps to eliminate "the system of signs and symbols that signal the inferiority of blacks."
Lawrence continues his essay by exclaiming that free speech undeniable conflicts with the elimination of racism, citing that the moral bigot has taken the high ground, fanning the "rising flames of racism." Lawrence seems to be trying to drive home the point that racist libertarians who are against regulating free speech to stop racial hatred are, in turn, making racial tension even stronger. It is indeed impossible to crush racial slurs if free speech is unregulated.
Free speech ostensibly would appear to give people the power to basically say what they want and not have to pay a price for it. However, Lawrence argues that racist speech constitutes fighting words and therefore, they should not be protected under the First Amendment. He strengthens his point by citing the authority of the Supreme Court that has held that words which "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected by the First Amendment.
Furthermore, if the fight against racist speech hasn"t really been effective throughout all these years, then why would anyone believe that we can still solve the problem with unregulated free speech still intact? Critics argue that by not regulating free speech, we, as a community would be forced to combat racism instead of just putting it away for it to show up in other areas. But Lawrence argues that though this is partially true, they are missing the point. They are neglecting the fact that racism is part of many people's lives and has and still is affecting a large amount of minorities in extremely damaging and harmful ways.
Lawrence continues to argue for regulation of racist speech by suggesting that racial speech is clearly not said to "initiate dialogue" but rather shut speech down and to inflict damage. He claims that racial speech functions as a "preemptive strike" to provoke the victim. He states that racist speech in no way should be protected by the First Amendment because of this, suggesting that the victim is basically in a lose/lose situation. It is here where he states that if racist speech can't be avoided, it shouldn't be protected, claiming that racist speech in dorms, bathroom, and living places should in no way be protected and that no one should have to face this on a day to day basis.
Lawrence then makes an appeal to authority again by bringing the Brown case up. He reiterates what he said earlier, " the brown case….speaks directly to the psychic injury inflicted by racist speech by noting that the symbolic message of segregation affected the hearts and minds of Negro children in a way unlikely to be undone."
John R. Logan, Deirdre Oakley and Jacob Stowell authors of an essay written in Sept 2003 on Segregation all seem to agree with Lawrence on this subject, stating that segregation sent messages to the black youth suggesting that they were indeed inferior to whites, not only in the area of education, but also in their living places. Segregated black neighborhoods also played a role in making black youth feel inferior to whites.
Lawrence came down the hardest on people opposing regulation of free speech in the later stages of his essay. He states that the main argument of those against regulation is that yes, racist speech does inflict damage, but that it must be allowed for the benefit of society as a whole. Lawrence counters this argument by claiming that it is unfair to place that kind of burden on anyone because it forces them to "live and work in an environment where at any moment they may be subjected to denigrating verbal harassment and assault." He again states that this is too much pressure to place on a certain race just because the dominant majority doesn't want to deal with it, and that we must ease some of the burden for them if that's the way its going to be done.
In the very late stages of Lawrence "s thought provoking essay, he offers many ways to resolve this issue, or at the very least help lessen the abuse. He exclaims that there can be no real progress in the issue of racist speech until it is realized that there is indeed real harm in it. He then says that if racist speech is not regulated, then we absolutely must make certain that those who have to bear this burden must be fairly represented and their voices must be heard. He continues by saying that it is a must for us to offer our support to students whose voices are "chilled in a climate of racial harassment.
Lawyers must consider suing on behave of minorities when their right to an equal education is denied because of racist speech. He wraps things up by sayings that we must all join in and help those who are oppressed by racist people and racist speech and that if we fail, we will appear to be on the oppressor"s side which would in turn, only make matters that much worse.
