The first Achaean tribes came from the high mountains and across the seven seas and settled in Terra Nullius. They loved property. Some began to own lakes, rivers, mountains and canyons that belonged to no mortal man. Some went on piratical expeditions to bring silver, gold and slaves. Trojans were brought to Terra Nullius in ivory ships, always in the middle of the night. Achaeans and Trojans worked hard and created new cities that attracted many tribes from other parts of the world. Gradually, Achaeans became a rich tribe but Trojans remained poor. One time, Achaeans fought among themselves over the meaning of property. Soon they were the best people in the world. They would eat, drink and be merry. In leisure hours they listened to tales of their heroes, gods and goddesses. The War of Words is a tragic tale of Terra Nullius. Its author was a blind man. Some say he was an alien without any vision. Some say the blind man was a Trojan by birth, but the King of Terra Nullius asked him to become an Achaean. Under the laws of Terra Nullius, no Trojan could become an Achaean without swimming through a boiling cauldron. Some say the blind man was bitter about his metamorphosis from a Trojan to an Achaean. Some say he refused to come out of the cauldron. Some say he wrote this play in the cauldron.

Zeus, King of gods, arbiter of human destiny.

Agamemnon, the leader of Achaeans.

Achilles, an Achaean.

Patroclus, comrade of Achilles.

Hector, son of Priam; commander of the Trojan army.

Priam, King of Troy.

Cassandra, daughter of Priam.

Andromache, wife of Hector.

Astyanax, son of Hector.

Dolon, scout for the Trojans.

Helen, wife of the Achaean King Menelaus.

Scene: A big camp-fire, not far from Troy, a city of Terra Nullius. Zeus and other gods are present.

Achilles: Sing, O goddess and mortal men and women, no law shall a'bridge the free'dom of speech. Sing! These are the sacred words of gods, which evoke among Achaeans the feelings of spontaneous joy and liberation. I believe in the wisdom of Achaean gods; and, I would defend their sacred words, come what may. No official has the power to decide which conversations Achaeans may have; in a free land that is individuals' choice. This is the position I take, and this is the principle most Achaeans adore. But Trojans, as you know, have a different viewpoint. I've invited Hector to the feast, and I'll heat his blood with Achaean wines tonight. I can't wait to hear his case. I wonder why he is late? Patroclus, would you like to join the conversation?

Patroclus: Most certainly. I, too, hold high the sacred words of freedom, as much as you do. If you allow me, Achilles, I would prefer to engage Hector first. I know I can outwit him.

Achilles: I'm sure you can. But I must say Hector is a tremendous foe: he is well-read, he is clever, and he has mastered skills to ask the most unsettling questions. If you let him weave his cobweb, he'll trap you. But don't be discouraged, Patroclus; I trust your abilities as much as I fear his. If you want to engage him first, go ahead. I'll wait until you are finished.

Patroclus: But where is he? Do you really think he'll come prepared to defend his position? Or is he just coming for a casual talk?

Achilles: I don't think Hector is a casual thinker, or, for that matter, a superficial conversationalist. But be careful. You must not, in the pride and fury of argument, go on disparaging Trojans. Oh, here comes his black chariot. See how decisive he looks! That dark figure! There's a countenance! Is't not a brave man? Look how he looks--as if he is coming to a battlefield.

Hector: I apologize for being late, but I do have an excuse. There was a big rally today in Troy. An Achaean clan, marched in the city chanting hate slogans against Trojans. The procession was peaceful, but Astyanax, my little son, and Andromache, my lovely wife, got scared; they insisted that we stay home until the rally passed by; hence, the delay. I would feel deep shame before Trojans if like a coward I were to shrink aside from the great conversation that gods have arranged between you and me.

Achilles: I'm sorry your family had to go through such an unpleasant experience. Hate rallies make me furious. I almost feel guilty for supporting extensive free speech. But, I do believe free speech would eventually exhaust these marchers of hate, turning their tongues dry, their feet languid, their slogans trite. One day, they would realize the futility of their act and the falsity of their creed.

Hector: I hope so, Achilles. The right of free speech is not be absolute at all times and under all circumstances. To this extent, we agree. But I am further convinced that worthless utterances, which inflict injury upon others, which are not essential part of any exposition of ideas, should be prevented and punished. Any advocacy of hatred is worthless speech as it has no redeeming value; and as such it ought not to be protected under the laws.

Patroclus: Let me remind you, ladies and gentlemen, there is a feast waiting for us. I would surely appreciate some shining wine before we plunge ourselves into any serious conversation.

Hector: A splendid idea!

Achilles: Well then, pour some into the goblet. And we will resume the discussion after the feast.

Dolon: [Aside] Intervene, O silent gods! I can hear a vicious crowd--full of hate, marching, with their heads covered with pointed cones.

(Background chants of a crowd sound distant and far away)

Patroclus: If you allow me, Hector, I would like to begin with a rather simple question: Isn't it firmly settled under our laws that the public expression of ideas cannot be prohibited just because these ideas are offensive to some of their hearers?

Achilles: [Aside] Ideas streaming out like wasps at the wayside when little boys have got into the habit of making them angry by teasing them as they live in their house by the roadside; silly boys, they do something that hurts many people.

Hector: Yes, but that is not the basis of my argument.

Patroclus: Then, are you saying that hate speech is not inherently offensive?

Hector: Of course, it is. I object to hate speech not simply because it is offensive, but because it is worthless. To avoid confusion, let me restate my thesis: I maintain that any advocacy of hatred must be treated as a distinct class of worthless speech without any value and beyond the protection of laws.

Patroclus: I am not sure what you mean by hatred.

Hector: First, distinguish between anger and hatred? Anger is an emotional state of mind. it is aroused by a source of frustration. Often, the source of frustration is an identifiable individual who obstructs some on-going activity. I may--

Patroclus: But--

Hector: Now a rude interruption could be a source of anger. Let me point out that anger is essentially a temporary emotional reaction that attacks the source of frustration. However, if the source of frustration is misunderstood or if reactiion is excessive, anger turns on itself causing feelings of guilt. Anger is often introspective, willing to see reason after the dust of emotion is settled.

Patroclus: Well, I did not mean to interrupt you.

Hector: Hatred is a different creature. It is a more permanent sentiment having deep roots in the mental-emotional life of an individual. Hatred does not always express itself through an emotional explosion; in fact, it is likely that hatred may never express itself through anger. Even when it does, its deep mental structure remains intact. Hatred is an attitude. It displays itself in many ways. Extreme forms are violent and aim to physically decimate the object, but hatred also expresses itself through indifference, apathy, hostility or discrimination.

Patroclus: May no such anger take me as this that you fear!

Hector: There is another difference. Anger is often person-specific, hatred is trait-specific; that is, hatred is felt toward a group of persons who share a common trait such as race or religion. Anger attacks the person; hatred attacks the trait. Hatred reduces the target group to a mere trait. It dehumanizes the entire group. It refuses to recognize members of the target group as distinct individuals, as unique human beings entitled to human dignity. Since hatred is obsessed with the rejection of a trait such as color or race, it remains blind toward the humanity of the group it attacks.

Patroclus: [Aside] There is little breathing space in the fighting. I do not like distinctions he makes.

Hector: You may have noticed, Patroclus, that hatred is self-righteous. It has no feelings of guilt, no sense of remorse; it does not repent; it stems from a deep-rooted conviction that the object of hatred deserves ill-will. Religious hatred presupposes that all gods except that of the hater are false; religious self-righteousness rejoices suppression of the "infidel." Racial hatred is a diehard commitment to a self-righteous belief that all races except that of the hater are inferior.

Patroclus: Now, if hatred is an attitude, are you suggesting that laws should punish people just because they have hateful thoughts?

Hector: No, that is not my position. Mere thinking, no matter how offensive, should never be punished. But when rotten thinking is acted upon, it is a different matter. As a matter of fact, I even distinguish between an advocate of hatred and a bigot. A bigot may discriminate, intimidate or use violence against members of the target group, but he may or may not have an interest in disseminating his views. The advocate of hatred is a dangerous extrovert, always seeking an audience to disseminate his ideas, always bent upon convincing others to adopt a course of action harmful to interests of the target group. It is this desire to reach out to an audience that distinguishes an advocate from a bigot. This distinction is key to any discussion of hatred.

Patroclus: So in your view advocacy of hatred presupposes the presence of an audience.

Hector: Not always the presence of an audience, but surely its existence. The advocacy need not be addressed to an immediately present audience or to specific persons. For example, the publication and circulation of a rumor may constitute advocacy even though it is not addressed to an immediately present audience, nor to any specific persons. But in all cases, advocacy implies reaching out to an audience. For, advocacy without an audience is no more than lunacy talking to itself.

Patroclus: Suppose that I make a hateful statement in the presence of my children. Is this advocacy of hatred?

Hector: Well, I do distinguish between public and private advocacy. Of course, any advocacy of hatred addressed to the public is, by definition, public advocacy. Private advocacy takes place in private places. For instance, any advocacy of hatred in one's home to one's own children and spouse is essentially of a private character. Private advocacy of hatred, even to one's own children, is morally disgusting and violates children's right to freely and fully develop their personality. Any hatred, fed to children, scuttles their ability to relate to members of the target group? Still, prohibition of private advocacy raises serious questions of privacy and sanctity of the family. That is why I focus only upon public advocacy of hatred.

Patroclus: Now that you have explained the meaning of advocacy of hatred, I remain convinced that any prohibition of such advocacy would violate the established law. Isn't it established under our laws that advocacy of abstract doctrine or academic discussion that does not incite any concrete lawless action belongs to the realm of ideas and is therefore protected speech? In fact, even denunciation of existing laws or advocacy of their violation, however morally incorrect, is not a justification for denying free speech.

Hector: I agree. But, are you not conceding that any advocacy of hatred that incites lawless action should be prohibited?

Patroclus: Who am I to concede or not to concede in matters of law?

Hector: [Aside] What a positive cur!

Patroclus: But, I do know that under the existing law, advocacy of hate speech may be prohibited if two conditions are met: first, such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action; second, it is likely to incite or produce such action. Any advocacy that falls short of incitement constitutes protected speech.

Hector: Now, suppose an advocate addresses a rally, makes a speech to provoke his audience to inflict bodily injury upon Trojans. Is this incitement?

Patroclus: Only if the some are likely to resort to some lawless action that the speaker has suggested. If the audience does not react to the speaker's provocation, no incitement has occurred.

Hector: But if in all seriousness this is your true argument, it must be the gods who have ruined your brain. Are you suggesting that even provocative hate speech is protected if no imminent lawless action flows from it?

Patroclus: Yes, that is a sensible interpretation of laws.

Hector: And, therefore, a close time proximity between hate speech and lawless action must be shown to suppress hate speech.

Patroclus: Now you are on the right track.

Hector: Tell me, Patroclus, is racial discrimination prohibited under our laws?

Patroclus: Of course, it is.

Hector: That's why segregation in public schools has been outlawed.

Patroclus: Yes.

Hector: And, that's why segregation in other public facilities such as prisons, courtrooms, restaurants, parks, and beaches have been declared unlawful.

Patroclus: Yes.

Hector: And that's why discrimination in matters of employment is illegal.

Patroclus: Yes.

Hector: In fact, there is a universal norm that racial discrimination in all forms and manifestations must be rejected in law.

Patroclus: Yes.

Hector: Therefore, any discrimination on the basis of race is a lawless action.

Patroclus: Yes.

Hector: Now, suppose an advocate of racial hatred carefully selects a sympathetic audience composed of high men. He then coaxes them that they refuse to hire Trojans in their outfits. Is this incitement?

Patroclus: Yes, but only if the high men are likely to do what the advocate has provoked them to do.

Hector: Now, suppose the high men do not discriminate right away, but they surely do the next time a vacancy is open. Is this incitement?

Patroclus: No, because there is no time proximity between hate speech and the act of discrimination. Incitement would require that hate speech be acted upon right away.

Hector: So, the rule you espouse refuses to recognize an evident, but a bit late, connection between hate speech and an act of discrimination.

Patroclus: So it seems.

Hector: Isn't it true that the purpose of law is to prohibit racial discrimination and not simply imminent racial discrimination?

Patroclus: Correct.

Hector: So, law prohibits racial discrimination, but it protects the hate speech that causes discrimination. Isn't that silly? [(Aside) calm down, Hector.] May I suggest, Patroclus, that hateful discrimination is not always emotional? Nor is it always hostile or violent. Often, hateful discrimination manifests itself through cold and deliberate conduct, showing neither passion nor compassion. If you allow me to conclude this argument, I would say: hateful discrimination is not an imminent reaction that hate speech ignites and explodes; it is an attitude that hate speech reaffirms and leavens. So, incitement is a defective rule to judge hate speech.

Patroclus: Well, law is law, whether you like it or not. But let me ask you, Hector, are you assuming that hate speech always causes prejudice and discrimination?

Hector: Did I say that?

Patroclus: Well, I assume you did not. But tell me, isn't it true that hate speech may in fact create counter-consciousness?

Hector: What do you mean by counter-consciousness?

Patroclus: That hate speech may not only fail to persuade the people to adopt hateful beliefs, but may in fact cause them to realize that hatred is bad.

Hector: That is possible. Still, the fact that hate speech would induce some people to practice discrimination against target groups remains unrefuted. Speech is the greatest means of human discourse. It is the best weapon to influence others.

Patroclus: I must say, Hector, your grand generalizations make deceptive arguments.

Hector: And your sarcastic remarks predict that you are about to lose an argument.

Patroclus: Suppose I accept your claim that hate speech causes prejudice and discrimination. How would you establish this cause and effect relationship in a court of law?

Hector: Now you have started asking silly questions. Are you confusing questions of proof with those of substance? The proof for a cause of action is one thing. Whether law recognizes that cause of action is quite another. The problem is not that causal proximity between hate speech and discrimination is hard to establish; the problem is that law is not yet willing to accept such a cause of action--even if it be shown that hate speech causes and promotes discrimination.

Patroclus: Unarm, dear Hector. Before we pursue another line of argument, I am just about ready to have some more wine. May I bring you some?

Hector: Yes. You are a fine man, Patroclus; but remember, mine honor keeps the weather of my fate: I hold honor far more precious dear than life.

(Thunder and lightning interrupts the conversation for brief moments and the background chants of the crowd are still inaudible)

Dolon: Hector, do you hear the crowd?

Hector: O, do I ...

Patroclus: Now that you are in high spirits, Hector, let me ask you a few questions about defamation, and I do hope your answers will be brief and honest.

Achilles: [Aside] Ah, Patroclus, illustrious, what is this you are saying?

Hector: Brief answers are not always honest, nor honest answers always brief.

Patroclus: You are indeed a petty quibbler. Now tell me, isn't it true that under our laws, no civil remedy is available for defamation that hate speech causes to the target group?

Hector: Correct.

Patroclus: And this denial of relief is based on the principle that group defamation is so general in nature that no person is singled out and damaged in his individual capacity.

Hector: I agree with this principle to the extent that group defamation does not single out any one individual, but it is hard for me to accept that group defamation does not harm individuals.

Patroclus: But, Hector, target groups are generally so large that any assertion of reputational injury to any individual member is almost frivolous.

Hector: When a defamatory remark is made against a large group, no one individual is the sole target of the harm intended; but it does not follow that individual members do not suffer harm. Suppose you race your chariot and pierce through a Trojan crowd; now even if you had not intended to kill any one particular Trojan, don't you see that some Trojans would still be killed?

Patroclus: I'm not sure if that is a good analogy.

Hector: This is a technique that human beings share with predatory beasts? Take lions; a lion first attacks a herd of cows and when they run in fright, he springs on one of them, seizes her neck in the grip of his ferocious teeth, and then laps her blood and gorges himself upon her entrails. And yet the beast attacked the whole group without knowing who exactly he would kill.

Patroclus: That's too gory, Hector. And moreover, you seem to be confusing the notion of harm: defamation inflicts reputational, not physical injury.

Hector: What I am trying to show you is that in every mass attack, injury is almost certain; and some will surely suffer. A physical mass attack inflicts a physical injury, a psychological mass attack inflicts psychological injury and a reputational mass attack inflicts reputational injury. And so, I don't understand, why our laws do not recognize that group defamation is potentially more harmful than individual defamation.

Patroclus: But your analysis is not legal. You invoke images of a jungle to argue that group defamation should be unlawful, which you well know is no way to make a case in a court of law.

Hector: A hate attack on an entire group is close to the law of jungle. Do you know, Patroclus, why group defamation is predatory? It is the most efficient way to attack and inflict injury. And therefore I believe that the best legal response to hate speech is not civil liability, but criminal sanctions.

Patroclus: Criminal sanctions? The prisons are full and overflow with murderers, thieves and unrepentant men. Do you really want to put innocent men and women in jail?

Hector: One who defames is not innocent. And group defamation is an attack on society. It creates disharmony among social groups.

Patroclus: How?

Hector: If you say all Trojans lack intelligence, isn't it true that such advocacy might expose Trojans to public contempt and ridicule?

Patroclus: It's possible.

Hector: And, it may deprive Trojans of public confidence and social intercourse.

Patroclus: Perhaps.

Hector: And, it might impeach their honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation.

Patroclus: Good Zeus!

Hector: And, if Achaeans and Trojans are destined to live together, such defamatory statements will cause suspicion and ill-will between the two groups.

Patroclus: That conclusion I do not accept. Defamation does not cause social prejudice; the reality is the other way round. It is the existing social prejudice that causes some to make defamatory statements.

Hector: I've noticed you like to bring up issues of causation. Even if you are right in saying the existing social prejudice causes defamatory statements, isn't it true that defamation might further fan the fires of existing social prejudice?

Patroclus: That might happen.

Hector: Thus, group defamation might further split the already divided social groups. Do you believe that this division is good for society in general?

Patroclus: I suppose not.

Hector: In my view society has a right, in fact a duty, to use criminal sanctions to curb mischiefs that either create or further entrench social evils. It is this principle that I invoke to punish group defamation.

Patroclus: But, if group defamation is declared criminal, free speech would be greatly chilled. Do you realize how many well-defined groups exist in society? Of course, there are racial groups. But, there are also political, professional, linguistic and indeed many other sorts of groups. Are you suggesting that speech which defames any group ought to be punished?

Hector: No, and that is why I've carefully focused my attention on disfavored groups.

Patroclus: Now on what basis can you meaningfully define a disfavored group?

Hector: Freedom of choice. Let me explain: individual human beings, for example, do not elect their racial groups; they are born into them. They may choose their political and professional groups and are free to change them. But they can neither choose nor change their racial groups. Thus the basis on which racial defamation inflicts injury is a natural condition that the target group has inherited and cannot alter.

Patroclus: But many other groups are immutable: those based on gender, sexual love, even religion.

Hector: Do not diminish the significance of the matter.

Patroclus: But you do not answer the question. Are you proposing to suppress racist speech or hate speech?

Hector: But there is another reason: racial defamation may have a special significance in multi-racial societies. Racially heterogeneous societies must protect disfavored groups, who have no political or economic power, against social prejudice unleashed by the dominant group. This protection must be available in a society where denigration of certain groups originated in slavery, thrived on segregation and still lingers.

Patroclus: Now is your time for big words, Hector. [Aside] Another such victory and I am undone.

Achilles: I've heard your conversation with utmost attention and I must say to you, Hector, your rhetoric is good enough to win hearts of the weak and minds of the naive; but the strong and the wise will not surrender to your deceptive arguments carefully couched in emotions that invoke compassion and sympathy. Great principles of law such as freedom of speech rest upon a strong foundation of deliberative far-sightedness, and not upon a soft heart that reacts to every transitory impulse. Free speech may not work in societies where individuals are fragile and self-righteous because free speech hurts and challenges. But free speech is an indispensable prerequisite for a tolerant society. I challenge you to hold your position, as you did with Patroclus, and make your best arguments for I am prepared to defend free speech.

Hector: I welcome your intervention, Achilles. In you I see a formidable foe: determined, self-assured, and almost flawless. But before we dig our heels into a new battle, would it not be wise for both of us to wet our tongues with some sparkling wine.

Achilles: To that extent, I agree.

(Background chants of the crowd are now somewhat audible. Lightening and thunder interrupt the conversation more often).

Hector: Come, Achilles, state your case. But, would you refrain from stating the general virtues of free speech for there are too many; and, let me further say, any defense of free speech would not automatically justify the protection of hate speech.

Achilles: That is the basic flaw in your arguments. You tend to believe that what is good can be easily separated from what is bad. But this separation is not always possible; sometimes, what is good is so entwined with what is bad, that any surgical effort to remove the bad would also damage the good; it is therefore better to tolerate the bad with the good than to lose the good with the bad.

Hector: You speak with the authority of gods, but at the same time, Achilles, you are too abstract. Please explain what you mean.

Achilles: Free speech is indivisible; it is a biotic whole, an organic concept, and it must be protected as such. Once you begin to dismember free speech retaining what you like and discarding what you don't, free speech will first lose its vitality and then its essence. So, it is better to preserve the integrity of free speech and tolerate what is offensive.

Hector: But that is not true, Achilles. Free speech is not absolute. The laws have already removed some of the excesses from free speech such as the obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting.

Achilles: I know, I know. And this is a dangerous trend. Rules of freedom couched in absolute terms such as 'no laws shall abridge the freedom of speech' manifest wisdom and resolution. But, once exceptions to the rule are created, the rule begins to falter. Present exceptions invite future exceptions; and, this process of decimation first weakens the rule, and then kills it. In matters of war and law, certain positions are so supreme that their best defense is their absolute defense.

Hector: Your position is more sentimental than rational, Achilles. In law, no principle in itself is supreme. Law must serve human ends; and when it does not, it may be modified or even abandoned. Now, would you say that hate speech is a desirable human objective?

Achilles: No, it is not. But hate speech is a manifestation of free speech; what law protects is not hate speech, but a manifestation of free speech. Isn't there a distinction?

Hector: Or, may I call it a legal pretense? In my view, no clever doctrine can hide the simple fact that free speech protects hate speech; and no legal distinction can refute the simple fact that free speech should be free of hatred.

Achilles: I adore your rhetoric, Hector, but you are missing an important point: when law accepts hate speech as a manifestation of free speech, law is content-neutral. In other words, law does not take any substantive position on what is right and what is wrong; it allows the expression of both right and wrong positions. Here, I would ask you to make a distinction between self-righteous and skeptical societies: In self-righteous societies, notions of right and wrong are predetermined; and free speech is not allowed to challenge these notions of right and wrong. In skeptical societies, there is no official truth; nor are the existing notions of right and wrong beyond criticism. Free speech may question popular values, conventional morality and official institutions. In such societies, ideas sprout, flourish, decay and die, just as the vegetation does in the fold of nature. Now, Hector, tell me why you prefer to establish a self-righteous society?

Hector: I don't. Self-righteous societies, at least the way you've defined them, are oppressive. But, even though I prefer what you call skeptical societies, I don't believe that in such societies all human values should be subject to doubt. There are certain core human values that need no further re-examination. Any debate about the truth of these values goes against the clear lessons of human experience. Human history is full of wicked episodes, such as slavery and apartheid, which show rather conclusively that racism is morally repugnant, legally unacceptable and scientifically false. Even then, if law allows hateful racist speech, it nullifies wisdom; it protects worthless speech that hurts a lot of people contributing nothing to social good.

Achilles: I agree with you, Hector. But, just because you and I believe racism is bad does not mean everybody else also holds the same opinion. For if each and every member of society believes racism is bad, there would be no racist speech. On the other hand, if certain members of society express racist ideas, that shows they still believe racism is valid and ought to be practiced. Now from our viewpoint, the holders of racist beliefs are wrong and have a low moral consciousness; but from their viewpoint, they are right. We say we are right and they are wrong; they say they are right and we are wrong. So, who is to say who is right and who is wrong?

Hector: Come on Achilles, you can do better than that. Are you advocating moral relativism? Don't you believe in shared consciousness? Don't you think if society in general believes that racist speech is worthless, the debate should come to an end.

Achilles: I can't believe you said that, Hector. The majoritarian opinion in such matters is the most treacherous standard. The victims of racism and hate speech are often powerless minorities. Now would you trust the majoritarian opinion in a society where most members of the dominant group have racist beliefs?

Hector: Of course, not.

Achilles: Then, I take it, you are assuming the existence of social conditions where the people in general are opposed to racism. Now if that's what you have in mind, are you saying that once the dominant group abandons racism, there is no possibility that it may regress back to racism?

Hector: No, that's not my view either. In fact, the revival of racism worries me and that is why I oppose the legal protection of hate speech You have a point that the majoritarian standard to suppress free speech is dangerous. But I still believe the right-minded people have so conclusively rejected racism that any skepticism about its worthlessness is unwarranted.

Achilles: Now you are proposing a new standard, aren't you? Who are the right-minded people? Who would you trust? Intellectuals? Governmental officials? Charismatic leaders? Judges?

Hector: I don't know. Perhaps, none of them. But tell me, Achilles, what would say to a poor woodcutter who makes ready his supper after a long, difficult day, while his arms and hands have grown weary from cutting down the tall trees, and his heart has had enough of it, and the longing for food takes hold of his senses; can you imagine the depth of evil if at that moment someone yells 'See, how eats that filthy, lazy woodcutter!" Such examples sink in the depth of my heart and convince me that hate speech is cruel.

Achilles: I agree with you. Still, I would not propose to suppress it. I know there are several clans out there who thrive on hate speech. I disapprove of their views, their attitudes. I also agree with you that hatred dwells in low consciousness. But if hate speech is suppressed, racism would fester and spread like a rotten wound that had been tightly bandaged. And that's why I would never muzzle any hate speech. I would let the bigots speak it all out until their hearts are humanized, their tongues cleansed, their hatred purged.

Hector: I respect your intentions, Achilles; but you propose an ominous catharsis. I don't believe hate speech purges the speaker or, for that matter, the audience that hears it. Hate speech is not therapeutic. On the contrary, hate speech feeds on itself: it does not simply express itself, it derives its nourishment from its own expression; for example, when a hate speaker addresses a sympathetic audience, his views are validated, his beliefs confirmed; and when he addresses a hostile audience, he derives sadistic pleasure from the minds he confuses and from the hearts he hurts. So, I cannot accept the argument that hate speech is its own poison, and that if allowed to exist it will languish and gradually wilt away.

Dolon: Stop! What noise is that? Do I hear a furious crowd? Who are these people? How many? What are they chanting? Why are they burning symbols of love in the name of gods? Why Jesus? Is he an Achaean?

Hector: Close the windows! Close the doors! Achilles, I entreat you, by your life, by your knees, by your parents, do not let the dogs feed on me! Where is my son? Where is my wife? Astyanax! Andromache!

The Crowd: Agamemnon! Agamemnon! Agamemnon!

Hector: O, Zeus! I know you well as I look upon you. I know that I could not persuade you. In your breast is a heart of iron.

(A Few days later)

Priam: I am on the edge of sorrowful old age. I have had the noblest of children in Troy, but I say not one of them is left to me. They have killed them all: some in body, some in spirit; some in prisons and some on streets. Achilles, I have come to beg you for the body of my dearest son, Hector. I put my lips to the hands of the man who has killed my children.

Achilles: Now I know--many men and women, both Trojans and Achaeans, will weep for Hector. O, a brave man! Such is the way the gods spun life for unfortunate mortals, that we live in unhappiness, but the gods themselves have no sorrows. There are two urns that stand on the door-sill of Zeus: an urn of evils and an urn of blessings. I sit here in Troy, and bring nothing but sorrow to you and your children. Your son is given back to you, aged sir, as you asked it. He lies on a bier.

Cassandra: Come, men of Troy and Trojan women, look upon Hector if ever before you were joyful when you saw him come back living from battle; for he was a great joy to his city, and all his people.

Helen: Hector, I have never heard a harsh saying from you, nor an insult. No, but when another would say a harsh word to me, then you would speak and put them off and restrain them by your gentleness of heart and your tender words.

Priam: Now, men and women of Troy, bring candles that burn with a gentle flame. Tonight is a cold winter night. Let us gather around the burning pyre of illustrious Hector, and from there we will march towards the city holding a thousand lighted candles. Let each candle protest against the hatred flowing from the words of gods. Achilles is on our side until the dawn comes.

Achilles: No mortals may recast the words of gods. May there be no amendment to gods' amendment. Free speech is a pearl whose price has launched above a thousand ships and turned crowned kings to merchants, clowns, and even criminals. [Aside] Quiet, quiet! In my quietest moments I mourn Hector's death. He was indeed a noble foe.

* Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. I am grateful to several colleagues at Washburn who proposed useful amendments to the first draft. Bill Langdon, Charlene Smith, and Allen Easley were particularly helpful. Rebecca Woodman smoothed many rough transitions.

* Professor of Law, Washburn University.
All contents copyright © this story may not be published without the author's permission.

Return to the beginning of the article