On May 21, in a high-pressure Oval Office meeting, U.S. President Donald Trump ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with a video of Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema inciting revolutionaries to commit violence against and even kill white farmers in that nation. Trump’s stand and Malema’s recent arrest under a South African hate speech law that took effect in 2024 have excited conservatives celebrating a just victory against anti-white hatred and left-wing extremism.
This delight, however, is misguided. By celebrating, conservatives are hopping on the bus of identity politics, a bane to all sound social thinking and effort.
Conservatives should never celebrate the triumph of hate speech laws — even when they support urgent and needed corrections to legitimate political grievances. Doing so legitimizes a corrupt judicial framework rooted in racism and group identity divisions that undermine true justice and the hope of social cohesion.
The Evolution of Hate Speech and Its Problems
Hate speech legislation started with civil rights efforts meant to overcome racial discrimination and violence in the 1960s. The laws were designed to criminalize speech directly inciting violence or discrimination against minorities. Over time, however, definitions expanded beyond direct incitement to include speech deemed offensive, stigmatizing, or other vague and random sputters of offense and “triggers” against any protected group (the list of which grows daily).
This expansive and often vague definition has resulted in laws and social norms that regulate speech by prioritizing the grievances of particular groups over the actual individual crime committed. We end up smothered under social justice agendas and identity politics, increased division and hatred in our country — while making no progress toward regulating genuinely harmful and dangerous activity on social media.
Conservatives Should Reject the Hate Speech Framework
Conservatives rightly oppose identity politics wielded by the left to propagate division and and a culture of grievance. This is precisely why celebrating hate speech convictions for people who harm those like us or who align with our political views is a self-destructive contradiction.
Conservatives should return to foundational principles rooted in classical liberalism and criminal law: the criminality lies in the advocacy or incitement of violence or criminal harm. This must be universal, irrespective of the target’s identity.
In Malema’s case, the focus should be on his advocacy of murder, not the group he targeted. Applying this standard uniformly avoids legitimizing double standards rooted in identity politics and aligns with the commitment to equal protection and individual responsibility under the law.
Celebrating hate speech convictions like Malema’s undermines individual accountability and dilutes the principle of equal protection under the law. It distracts law enforcement and the judiciary with agenda-ridden social categories and motivations, making enforcement subjective and often politically charged.
Sticking to the ideals of equal justice stays faithful to true liberal democratic principles and prevents divisive political forces from hijacking the judicial process.
Frank Kaufmann is president of The Settlement Project, and author of Woke Ideology Critique and Counter Proposal.
