Hate speech should have no place in a civil society. But ‘should have’ is aspirational. The reality is that hate speech is increasingly part of public discourse. My perception, that I readily admit might be skewed by my age, is that social media makes it easier for people to communicate hateful, hostile thoughts without thinking about those on the receiving end.

Recently, I was attacked in social media by friends and colleagues who thought that I should have spoken out to demand that a newly elected legislator who spewed hateful anti-Semitic language be removed from office.

Her post was shocking and offensive. But it is more complicated than that. She was elected by her constituents to represent them. Where is the line between protected political speech and shouting fire in a crowded theater? If I demanded her resignation for her behavior, who else might demand resignation of others for speaking out on issues with which they do not agree.

Trying to ‘light a candle rather than curse the darkness’, I determined to use the resources that were available to me. With some of my colleagues, including Democratic Leader Renny Cushing, we chose to use the institutions of the legislature to address the problem.

Therefore, on Dec. 16, at the first Rules Committee meeting of the new legislature, we asked that the rules be so far suspended as to permit the late drafting of a bill, the purpose of which is as follows: Hate speech, bullying and intimidation – including engaging in harassment based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, race, creed, color, age, marital status, physical or mental disability or national origin, is not proper and appropriate for a legislator and subject to the same complaint process and range of sanctions as other ethics violations.

The committee, voting 5-4 along party lines, refused to permit us to proceed. I was saddened, dismayed, and even shocked. What we proposed, rather than an ‘off with your head’ approach, rather than a partisan attack, was to follow an established process under which, after passage of the proposed legislation, we could legitimately hold members accountable for unacceptable behavior.

The Rules Committee made other decisions: refusing to require training and education to address sexual harassment and unconscious bias, refusing to limit weapons on the floor of the house as well as alcohol and other illegal substances. But I believe that the decision to prohibit a bill to be drafted, that would then go through the legislative process before the members of the house and the senate has to be construed as an endorsement of the very behavior that we believe should be subject to review by the Legislature, following established procedure.

Newsletter