An edited version of this article appears in Practical Internet issue 62.
The problem with banning hate speech is that it can only ever be applied in a one-sided way. It is certain to be applied to the National Front and other old-fashioned right wing organisations, even though few of them explicitly advocate violence or hatred. But would it apply to George W. Bush saying, "I have called our military into action to hunt down the members of the Al Qaeda organization...I gave fair warning to the government that harbors them in Afghanistan"? Doesn't that advocate violence against a minority group? Couldn't it constitute incitement to racial hatred of Afghans?
The reality is that banning hate speech can only strengthen the ability of those in positions of power to silence those with whom they differ. And that applies just as much as to those who criticize the Government for its environmental policies, or for bombing Afghanistan, as it does to a bunch of clapped-out, would-be Nazis.
Underlying calls for the banning of hate sites is the degraded notion that if people read hateful material they will necessarily accept it and act on it. This imparts speech with a power that it doesn't possess: the power to control your mind. The same mysticism is expressed by the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism when they describe Nazi memorabilia as "objects that incite racial hatred". The idea is that if I see a swastika I will somehow be driven to build a gas chamber. What motivates those who want to ban hate speech today is the deep-seated belief that you can't be trusted to draw the right conclusions about things and it would be far safer if they made up your mind for you.
A belief that words can "compel" behavior in and of themselves is akin to a belief in magic. It would appear that the German government continues to believe that Germans are an exceptionally superstitious bunch.
Is there any evidence of such a condition?