A few years ago, I wrote a definition of hate speech that I believed then—and know now—should disqualify it from free speech protections:
Hate speech is any form of expression that attacks, demeans, or discriminates against an individual or group based on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. It is often used to harm, intimidate, harass, or marginalize vulnerable people, and it has devastating effects on individuals and communities.
The distinction matters: hate speech is fundamentally different from free speech because it targets people based on innate characteristics and causes demonstrable harm.
Free speech ends where deliberate harm begins.
When a speaker's words are intended to—or even unintentionally do—cause harm to others based on who they are, that speech cannot be considered free.
Evidence shows that increased hate speech leads directly to more hate crimes, normalizes discrimination, creates environments where violence becomes more likely, and inflicts deep emotional and psychological damage on those targeted.
Dr. Christy Pérez's article on legislative hate and Transgender Day of Remembrance 2025 demonstrates exactly why this reframing is urgent. When Rep. Nancy Mace repeatedly uses anti-trans slurs during official House hearings and dismisses the harm with "I don't really care," we are not witnessing debate—we are witnessing hate speech weaponized and amplified through government power and media reach. This isn't political theater. This is state-sanctioned targeting.
And when hate speech is repeated, codified, and enforced through legislative action, the harm multiplies exponentially.
The words spoken inside Congress do not stay there. They ripple outward into homes, workplaces, streets, and schools where trans people are already navigating fear and isolation. When those who wish us harm hear elected officials mock us, lie about us, or dehumanize us, they hear permission.
The anti-trans bills aren't policy disagreements. The slurs aren't slips. The mockery isn't free expression. These are deliberate acts of discrimination that create conditions in which violence becomes more likely, embed stigma into law, and perpetuate cycles of intolerance. As Pérez writes: "Legislative hate is not speech. It is complicity in murder." She's right.
We need accountability that matches the harm.
Hate speech should never be protected under free speech laws or human rights legislation, because it perpetuates the very harms those laws exist to prevent. And when it comes from those entrusted with public power, removal from office should be the minimum consequence, not a radical idea.
As responsible members of society, we must stand against hate speech wherever we encounter it—including and especially inside our legislatures—and promote a culture rooted in respect, diversity, and inclusivity. Our survival cannot be treated as political sport.
