Insults And Hate Speech

Proving once again that JD Vance was correct when he scolded the Europeans for their abandonment of the principles of free speech, a Swiss court sentenced a writer to 60 days in jail for calling another journalist a "fat lesbian."

The insulter, who goes by Alain Soral, is described as a "far-right ideologue." I'll only mention in passing that "far-right" is, to the legacy press, anyone who isn't a full-blown Leftist, because Soral does appear to have nativist views (one hallmark of the European Right). That he was prosecuted for Holocaust denial and was at one time a self-professed Marxist and a member of France's Communist Party, points us at Horseshoe Theory, but again, I'll only mention that in passing. He seems to be, on first examination, mostly a professional asshole.

Thus, he's not exactly the poster child for righteous defense of free speech rights.

Or is he?

First, I'll get out of the way the matter of accuracy. The insulted party, Catherine Macherel, is openly gay, and while "fat" is subjective, the photos of her that I see on the internet suggest she's not exactly svelte. Per AI, in America,

truth is generally a complete defense against a defamation claim. If a statement is proven to be true, it cannot be considered defamatory, even if it damages someone's reputation.

Not so in Switzerland, where "in 2020 ... voters approved a measure that made it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation."

And increasingly not so in other European nations, where tolerance is a one-way street with those anti-backup spikes deployed across its span.

The American Left has been trying to take us down the same road for the last couple decades at least, with demands that insults be made legally actionable if they incorporate some of the target's identity markers. And, of course, removing truth as a defense.

If that ever happens, we will see a massive expansion of the "crab antics" nature of the grievance hierarchy, where equality is replaced with a constant battle to see who is allowed to charge whom with "hate speech." It's easy to prosecute someone like Soral, because (to the best of my knowledge) he is a straight white male and therefore at the bottom of the grievance hierarchy. But, what would happen if Soral were black and transgender? Would the Swiss Court prosecute [insert declared pronoun]? Or would those identity markers put Soral above Macherel in the grievance rankings and therefore make [insert declared pronoun] unprosecutable?

American jurisprudence has well-established and long-standing exceptions to First Amendment speech protections. They are slander, libel, perjury, intimidation, and incitement. And, again, it's not slander or libel if what you say is true, even if the tone (or intent as gleaned from context) is insulting. In some cases, intimidation or incitement might be argued, but neither is even suggested in the Soral case. Soral is going to jail for insulting Macherel, and that's it.

This is where we need to revisit the question of whether Soral should be championed by free speech defenders, and it takes us to the "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" aphorism (mis)attributed to Voltaire. We can deem Soral to be an asshole with whom we disagree vehemently if we wish, but unless we defend his right to be a disagreeable asshole, we open the door to the eventual snuffing of all speech that displeases those in power.

This is why libertarians have been suspicious and skeptical of "hate crime" laws that rely on subjectiveness or inference since their inception half a century ago, and it's why we should be outraged at Soral's jailing for what is nothing more than a schoolyard insult by an agitator.

Could this be a stunt to highlight the injustice of the law? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. If we believe in free speech, the intent behind the insult, barring the previously listed exceptions, is irrelevant.