By disengaging from public debate, citizens not only become less sovereign, they also run the risk of losing the battle against the hate-monger. It is also useful for society to know who is spreading hate. By identifying and monitoring their messages, we are able to act quickly if hateful expression turns into hateful action. Furthermore, those expressing hate will know that society is keeping watch on them. In contrast, prohibiting hate speech will have the effect of forcing these communications underground, possibly causing more harm in terms of discrimination and violence than if the messages had been publicly aired.
Hate speech is bad thing.
As such, they provide an important field test for civic activism. After all, our commitment to equality and diversity does not result from the state telling us that these values are important. We also lose our opportunity as citizens to understand and practice the values of equality, tolerance and respect in a real, non-theoretical, context. As a rule, citizens should be able to gain access to any public space to express their views, no matter how controversial. However, libraries bear a particular responsibility to ensure open access.