Kilson's Statements Do Not Form an Argument

I am writing in response to Martin Kilson's letter in the November 12 Crimson. Professor Kilson argues, while peppering his leter with critical-legal terms that are incomprehensible to the general public, that our society should no longer continue to include hate speech in the realm of protected free expression.

I could dispute Kilson's assertion on several grounds. However, I wish specifically to address his claim that "[t]he most visible extra-democratic outcomes of hate-speech are found in national statistics on crimes based on race, national origin, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation." Hate speech is not the same as crimes based on hate. I will not deny that there is some relation between the two. But I would hope that by this point in his career Professor Kilson could tell the difference between a causation and a correlation.

Kilson presents no evidence that hate speech caused the specific incidents of violence he discusses. He presents no evidence that banning hate speech will prevent any such violent crimes. He does not appear to even consider that by banning hate speech, he may only make it more attractive to a fringe of society, and if his reasoning is correct, produce even more violence. Kilson repeats time after time that hate speech is dangerous, but fails to produce any concrete evidence proving why. Repetition does not make an assertion any more true. Jol Silversmith '94