[…]
On Tuesday night the Anchorage Assembly introduced and passed a resolution the members believe will promote “civil discourse.” Let’s look at a few of some of the loaded terms that are peppered throughout the document. You may read it in its entirety here. [AR 2023-137 – ed.]
Hate speech most often refers to any speech that disparages a social group or member of that group. Hate is attached to a person’s inner motive. One could wonder why we don’t use the term “disparaging speech.” Even though the term “disparaging” is subjective, it does a better job of pointing to the actual speech of the person rather than inserting itself into the person’s inner workings.
The term “hate” elevates the severity of the offender and effectively labels a person a “hater.” When the state of someone’s inner motives is being judged not by the speaker, but by the hearers, whoever has the most power gets to decide that person’s label. When we begin judging hate, we elevate ourselves as a judge and jury to shame the “offender.”
Assembly Member Meg Zaletel wanted to make it clear that this is not a law with teeth. It is merely a “resolution.” So, is not yet about creating legal consequences.
Instead, it is an effort to shame those who do not internally ascribe to the values or loaded language held within. Once legislators shift from a focus on the concrete actions of constituents into judging our heart motives and values, our relationship with our government lacks protective boundaries.
