2018] TOTALITARIAN ORIGINS OF HATE SPEECH REGULATION 25
humanities, social sciences, and legal scholarship.10 The totalitarian
communist origins of hate speech regulation can be traced in an essentially
chronological order, as this Article sets out to do. Communism’s
ideological influence descended from the mid-twentieth-century
communist regimes, to the Marxist “critical theory” of the Frankfurt
School, to various modern offshoots of Marxist critical theory, through to
the rigidly institutionalized leftist doctrines in today’s academy, such as
critical race theory.11 One influential Marxist and American professor,
Herbert Marcuse, promulgated the notion of “repressive tolerance,” the
most vivid link connecting totalitarianism to modern hate speech
regulation.12 Without a rigorous critique of communism and its methods of
control, discourse about hate speech regulation lacks historical context, and
academic bias undermines empirical scrutiny of speech regulation.
Part VI critically reappraises the relationship of hate speech regulation
to totalitarian communist ideology. Political correctness is the crucial
conceptual sinew connecting hate speech regulation to the historical
experience of communist rule. Five factors were central to the practical
application of communist doctrine: intense group grievances, a sense of
victimhood, the desire to impose doctrine, the desire to persecute opposing
viewpoints, and strong faith in the state to wisely limit free expression.13
Those five factors foster the institutional mechanism of speech regulation,
linking twentieth-century communism to contemporary hate speech
Part VI then reconsiders hate speech regulation as a doctrinal
enforcement mechanism. Similarly, this Article scrutinizes the policing of
“microaggressions” as an effort to demonize ideological opposition and
entrench hegemony through the culture of victimhood. Sensitivity training
is reinterpreted here as doctrinal re-education. Ultimately, the social
sciences are equipped to provide a cogent critique of contemporary hate
speech regulation, but these disciplines have utterly failed to challenge the
normative and empirical bases of speech regulation. This Article is
intended to begin to fill that void in the extant work.
At the outset, it should be noted that this Article does not suggest that
proponents of hate speech regulation plan to reproduce Soviet or Maoist
10 See infra Section V.A.
11 See infra Part V.
12 Herbert Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance,in ACRITIQUE OF PURE TOLERANCE 81, 111
(Beacon Press ed., 1970).
13 See infra Part VI.