How Equal Protection Laws Threaten Free Speech

Equal protection laws are designed to protect individual rights by ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law. However, some argue, including economist Murray Rothbard, that these laws can actually undermine these rights, particularly the right to free speech. This summary reviews the conflicts that arise between equal protection laws and free speech, illustrating how the interpretation of “hate speech” can lead to the suppression of individual liberties.

1. Conflicting Ideals:

• Proponents of egalitarian values claim that equality and individual liberties, like free speech, are compatible.

• However, conflicts arise in real-life situations, especially when free speech appears to harm vulnerable groups.

2. Special Protections and Speech Limits:

• Advocates for equal protection argue for measures that shield vulnerable groups from hate speech, suggesting that such protections are necessary for these groups to enjoy equal rights.

• This perspective often leads to the conclusion that free speech may need to be limited to ensure equal protection for these groups, leading to a clash between the two principles.

3. The Subjectivity of Hate Speech:

• “Hate” is often defined subjectively, which can result in vague laws that can be applied inconsistently.

• For example, a report discussing “rural racism” highlights feelings of discomfort that ethnic minorities may experience in predominantly white areas, which could easily be classified as hate speech under loose definitions.

4. Legal Precedents:

• In cases like Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, speech deemed offensive can be classified as harassment under civil rights law, limiting free speech under the guise of protection.

• Laws targeting hate speech often conflict with First Amendment rights, exemplified by New York’s “Online Hate Speech Law,” which has been struck down in court for this reason.

5. Rothbard's Perspective:

• From a Rothbardian view, all rights are seen as property rights, including free speech.

• People have the right to express themselves unless that expression infringes on others’ property rights. No one has the right to expect others to accept their speech, especially if it’s viewed as offensive.

6. Imposing Restrictions:

• The concept of equal protection has been interpreted to mean that vulnerable groups need additional legal protections, which may result in unequal treatment of other groups.

• This can create a paradox where laws meant to equalize actually enforce inequality by protecting some groups over others.

The tension between equal protection laws and free speech demonstrates a complex issue where the intent to protect certain groups can inadvertently suppress individual rights for others. This dynamic invites serious questioning of how laws are crafted and applied, especially concerning what constitutes hate speech and how it can affect the principle of free expression. Advocates for free speech argue that society must navigate these conflicts carefully to maintain both equality and liberty under the law. 

https://mises.org/mises-wire/how-equal-protection-laws-threaten-free-speech