In response to the headline “Should Hate Speech be Protected”, I responded:
“Hate speech” is a subjective claim. ALL speech should be protected. There is a movement by the Leftist Revolutionaries in this nation to suppress conservative opinions by claiming the speakers commit “hate speech”, or it makes them feel “unsafe”. This is merely an appeal to outrage or pity (logical fallacy) in order to gain political leverage. I will be addressing this issue on my blog in the near future.
A dialogue of posts followed:
Respondent #1:
You’re right. I tend to lean left myself and up until recently considered myself a liberal. I do not use that label anymore because the actions and statements from the left in the United States are not acceptable to me anymore. I was so angry when liberals were attacking the ACLU for their ‘Why We Must Defend Speech We Hate’ campaign. This seems very obvious to me and it is shocking how many liberals think that anything offensive should be shut down. No, no, and no. It is absolutely imperative to allow speech we don’t like. When censorship starts it won’t take long for it to filter into everything.
My Response to #1:
Thank you for seeing the Leftist movement for what it is. I try to make a distinction between Liberal (reasonable ideology) and Leftist (radical movement we now are seeing in full force). The push for Socialism is totally a Leftist movement… definitely not the traditional Liberal Democrats we have known. I hope we can return to open discussions rather than hateful shut-downs of opposition.
Respondent #2:
hate speech isn’t subjective it’s well defined
My Response to #2:
Not at all… don’t lie to yourself. The definition keeps broadening to include anyone whose opinion opposes the “accepted liberal standard.
Respondent #3:
What about when hate speech as racism threatens the life of people? Hate speech is not to oppose and idea. Hate speech is violence
No one has threatened the life of people. People claim they feel “unsafe” and lie that their life has been threatened, but only use that to mount violent riots and instigate violence against the ones they accuse of using “hate speech”. The scourge of the cross-burning, lynch mob white supremacists is long gone. Law enforcement makes sure that kind of terrorism is quashed immediately. Leftists use the ghosts of the past to frighten people and further their agenda. That’s exactly what happened in Charlottesville. The counter-protesters are the ones who instigated the violence. They mounted their counter protest with the distinct intent to start physical violence. The Unite the Right demonstrators had no intention of doing anything physically violent (the weapons they carried were for self-defense, knowing they were likely to be attacked). Throwing bags of feces, urine, and paint at white supremacist demonstrators is far more violent than whatever meaningless racist drivel they speak. After the police declared an illegal assembly, the UTR demonstrators attempted to leave. They were attacked by a guy with a home made flame thrower (aerosol can equipped with an igniter) as they were trying to leave the park. The counter-protesters wouldn’t let them get to their cars. The independent investigation of the police departments’ handling of the matter was very revealing of the truth that the media quashed.
Also, if “threatens the life of people” is a criteria for banning hate speech, the Leftists who threaten the life of the president on a regular basis would be in trouble if the criteria were applied objectively. The entire “hate speech” movement is a completely subjective attempt to silence the opposition of burgeoning Leftists in this nation.
Respondent #2:
no. Hate speech is akin to shouting ‘fire’ in a theater. You encourage others to kill others and it’s known to work. Free speech isn’t protected for those fighting against hate, not REALLY, so why should hate itself be protected?
My response to #2:
Racist groups in the 21st century have been socially shamed such that they must covertly communicate on the web and arrange public demonstrations (very carefully) with law enforcement. By themselves, they do no more harm nowadays than spout racist drivel that, given that no mass media forum, does nothing more than demonstrate their unpopular opinion. With no mass media forum to publicize their opinions, if opposition groups did not show up to their demonstrations to “counter-protest”, their message could easily be ignored. Gone are the days of cross-burnings and lynch mobs, yet they are continually referenced in modern times as reasons to fear “hate speech”. The fear is a manifestation of itself and is used as a carte blanche “social justice” license to mount violent opposition . The problem occurs when counter-protest groups assemble in close proximity with the racist groups specifically to taunt them into violence. This has been documented on several occasions and occurs as throwing bags of human waste or paint onto the racist demonstrators, verbally assaulting them, physically attempting to wrest their flags or tiki torches from their grasp, or physically assaulting them. The demonstrators retaliate in self-defense and the whole scene degenerates into a riot. Then, conveniently, the offending counter-protesters get a free pass in the media because their opinion is socially revered while the racist group unjustly gets blamed in publicity reports because their opinion is reviled.
Hunton & Williams LLC performed an independent investigation into the events surrounding the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville. The objective analysis shows that the blame was falsely attributed by the media to the socially-acceptable scapegoat, the white supremacists. This URL will access the report. It is quite eye-opening…
https://www.hunton.com/images/content/3/4/v4/34613/final-report-ada-compliant-ready.pdf
(This is a rather voluminous analysis of the events surrounding the reviled Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally in August of 2017. I have read through it and summarized their findings. I will be posting them in a series of posts hereafter.)
Addendum to my response:
The hatred of “hate speech”, the hatred of “hate groups”, is now reached such a fever pitch that the purported “hate groups” are the ones who must fear violence. With the support of public opinion, “counter-protesters” are free to commit acts of violence on those whose opinions they hate with impunity. The media gives them a free pass and blames the convenient scapegoat of the publicly and historically reviled “hate groups”. I declare “antifa”, “Black Lives Matter”, and other “counter-protest” groups as Hate Groups because of their acts of violence toward the possessors of opinions they hate, not because of their opinions.
In the spirit of “If you see something, say something”, it would be prudent to alert authorities of verbal violence in the form of threats. Law Enforcement then will undertake the task of observing the offender and ensuring public safety. It is cooperation with Law Enforcement that will ensure that verbal violence will not lead to physical harm, not the censoring of “hate speech”. We must protect the First Amendment at all costs.
Interestingly, the counter-protest groups in Charlottesville REFUSED to coordinate their assembly with Law Enforcement (because they “didn’t trust the police”). This resulted in chaos that prevented the police presence from having any hope of maintaining crowd control. Because of the refusal to cooperate, the groups ended up intermingling despite the police attempts to keep this from happening. This intermingling inevitably led to the physical violence that escalated into a riot.
Political Furies: The Voices Never Heard 