A KKK chief just threatened to 'burn' all immigrants – freedom of speech has gone too far

Christopher Barker’s threat was not simply an opinion – it was a direct threat to a person’s life. So why is no one doing anything about it?

KKK member Chris Barker called journalist Ilia Calderon a "n**ger" and a "mongrel" in her interview with him for Latino media outlet Univision

“To me, you’re a N**ger. That’s it... and we’re gonna burn you out.” These were the words of Ku Klux Klan member Christopher Barker to Afro-Colombian journalist Ilia Calderón. He threatened to burn her alive and called her a “mongrel” during an interview with the Latino TV media outlet Univision, which was aired last night.

What is most shocking about this incident is that Barker has not been arrested or punished for such words and threats. Like many who have incited hate before him, he is enjoying the benefits of the right to freedom of speech.

Barker’s threat was not simply an opinion though – it was a direct threat to a person’s life. This is what freedom of speech looks like as the US Supreme Court keeps protecting racists and bigots like Barker. The first amendment of the US Constitution is allowing men like Barker to express themselves with violence and hatred without any repercussions. It is time for lawmakers to act and modify some of the laws that are protecting the wrong side of the country.

There are 917 hate groups active in the United States according to the Southern poverty law centre, an organisation seeking justice for victims of hate and bigoted acts. These groups are spreading their messages of hate using online platforms, holding rallies, burning swastikas in their backyards and holding the Confederacy flag on the streets. This is real.

Although these groups have been in the news this week, their presence is nothing new. Back in November last year after Trump won the election, Richard Spencer, a white supremacist, said to a room full of supporters “Hail Trump, hail our people!” They responded with cheers and the Nazi salute.

Richard Spencer was also one of the organisers of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where white nationalists and neo-Nazis chanted “Jews will not replace us. Blood and soil.”

Under US law, it is completely acceptable for people to use this kind of language and hold demonstrations that put others in fear and danger.

The US government claims to protect people’s freedom, but by allowing hate speech and white nationalist rallies, they are promoting one group’s freedom of speech at the expense of many other groups’ freedom to live in safety. A freedom which, although a right under UN law, is not found anywhere in the US constitution.

In fact, the reason these hate demonstrations keep happening is because of the Constitution. Part of the first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech.” What this means is that there should not be any kind of force curtailing the ability of men and women to express themselves, verbally or symbolically, even if what they are saying is hateful.

There are a few exceptions in which the first amendment does not protect some forms of speech. This includes exceptions for fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury, false advertising and true threat, but there is nothing targeting hate speech specifically.

But does saying to someone “We’re gonna burn (your people) out” not count as a true threat?

The problem with Constitutional limitations is the lack of clarity among these forms of expression. The US Supreme Court has had trouble identifying what kind of hate speech could be considered as “fighting words” and therefore be punishable under law.

Back in 2010, the US Supreme Court concluded that it was completely lawful for activist Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist Church to throw homophobic insults to the family of marine Matthew Snyder during his funeral. Snyder died during the Iraq war.

The United States Courts explained that “The Supreme Court's holding [Phelps] turned largely on its determination that the church was speaking on "matters of public concern" as opposed to "matters of purely private significance.” The First Amendment offers special protection to speeches on public issues as they “should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

This is why politicians need to change some of the language and be more specific in order to condemn hate speech in this country. It is not enough for elected officials to condemn the actions of these extremist groups. It is necessary and crucial to change the law and bring justice through our courts as well.

Countries like France and Austria hold laws that punish hate speech and public insults that are based on race, religion and ethnicity.

Meanwhile, groups like the KKK, the so called “Alt-right”, white supremacists and neo-Nazis will continue to do whatever it takes to protect their right to freedom of speech enabling them to spread hate across the country.

In his farewell address, Barack Obama once pointed to the importance of making laws that protect the commonwealth of every person in this country: “We need to uphold laws against discrimination… in the criminal justice system. That is what our constitution and our highest ideals require.”

And that is exactly what President Trump should be advocating for. Instead of blaming “many sides” for the violence infecting this country, Trump needs to condemn these white supremacist groups and work with lawmakers to update the laws of this country. There needs to be laws that do not welcome this kind of hate and violence, or many people will continue to live in fear.