How Should We Approach Hate Speech?

I am often torn by the best way to approach hate speech. I suppose I should try to pin down what I mean by hate speech. In this case I take it to mean talk that is intentionally meant to incite violence and harm against a particular group of people or person (and maybe someone can make better sense of this than I can http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/18.html).

I find, admittedly, groups like the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) enthralling in a sick and disturbing kind of way. I just cannot fathom the mindset. The first time I recall having that kind of sick fascination with a group was when in fifth grade we were studying World War II history and the teacher had to explain to the students what the Holocaust was. As children, we couldn’t understand what feelings could possibly drive the attempted extermination of a group of people.

That feeling comes around again when I see those who preach hatred (and possibly violence, but those claims never hold up in court) against any group of people. Recently my two contacts with this have been the visit to campus by a southern preacher who does a circuit of the Midwest (we’ll call him Brother M) and, of course, the WBC.

I’m curious about what the proper response is to these individuals. In both cases, Brother M and WBC, there have been counter protests and I even took part in one against Brother M. It felt good to voice our own thoughts against his and his family’s. In the case of the WBC watching footage of counter protests is often gratifying, at least to see that people are willing to drown them out, shout them down.

But here’s the kicker:

WBC and Brother M both have rights to their opinions. Living in a free society with protected freedom of speech, they do have the right to say the things they do. Does it mean they should? Probably not, but they have that right. We also have the right to counter protest, to occupy the same spaces they do, and to have our own signs. However, is this ultimately helpful?

What is it we want out of these counter demonstrations? I think we want them to stop. We want them to leave. When Brother M couldn’t say a word without all of us laughing at or questioning everything he said it was satisfying. When he left at the end of the day it wasn’t because of us though. So did we accomplish anything except stroking our own egos?

I’ve often read—and been told—that the best way to approach people like this is to ignore it. They love the attention, even if they won’t admit it. That’s why they demonstrate the way they do. It gets attention. When the crowd gathers it fuels the flames. More people show up to places where people are. Boom ba da bing, and audience. Creating a space where no one reacts or cares is probably, logically speaking, the best way to deal with those individuals. In a space where their voices get lost because no one is shouting back they can’t affirm their place. When no one pays attention or cares, what would they do then?

So please, fill me in. This is where I’m torn: I want to say something because to do nothing, though it may logically be the best response, seems like sanctioning this behavior. By not doing anything to stop it or protest, the immediate reaction is that I have dropped the ball in some way, that I wasn’t brave enough to make my voice heard. Why should that person with the megaphone and the posters be able to stand there uninterrupted? (I know, they have a right to, and they should have that right, because I also have a right to my voice and I wouldn’t want that taken away at any price).

Is there a right way to go about engaging people like this? Are my immediate feelings misguided? (NOTE: they probably are, I’m willing to admit this). Does anyone else feel the same way?

Responses are welcome. Cheers.