Why America needs a hate speech law

“free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Salman Rushdie put it this way - Belief in freedom of speech is not belief in freedom, only for ideas one agrees with. Everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom of speech is belief in freedom for ideas that you detest.

 

Everyone's so sensitive these days. It's like among skinless people. They're all raw nerves everywhere, all the time. On the other hand, I don't believe them. I don't believe that they are inferring from me what they impute to me.

 

I will put the above reply memory and use it often.

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

knock knock knock... who's there? "it's the speech patrol , put down your device and step outside with your hands in the air!"

somehow i get the feeling that alot of lefties would be jailed, lol

 

Big Bad Government fans are always surprised when their favorite thing turns on them.

 

Democrats are all for hate speech laws, just as long as they and only they get to decide what is hate speech.

 

Here's more:

 

Hoover was a piece of work.

"On November 27, Roy Wilkins was told by Cartha DeLoach that if King wanted "war" the FBI was prepared to engage in one, and the two of them discussed the FBI's "derogatory" material. Wilkins told DeLoach that if the FBI made it public, it could ruin the civil rights movement. Obviously Wilkins reported this back to King, and a number of leaders, including King, agreed to take steps to set up a meeting with the director. Hoover agreed to meet with King on December 1.

According to all accounts, the meeting was exceedingly cordial. Hoover expressed support for the civil rights movement and then turned to what was on his mind criticism of the bureau. The meeting consisted of a long monologue by Hoover on the FBI's efforts to protect civil rights demonstrators, enforce the laws in the South, and prevent terrorism. At the end of the meeting, King and Hoover agreed to a public truce.

Only now do we know how close the FBI came to an all-out confrontation. Unknown to King or SCLC until later, the FBI, at the height of the public controversy, took its most distressing step. It mailed the "tapes" to the SCLC office in Atlanta with a covering letter urging King to commit suicide or face public revelation of the information on the tapes on the eve of the award ceremonies in Sweden. The letter said in part:

King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significance). You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy fraudulent self is bared to the nation."

THE LAWLESS STATE, The crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies, by Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, Christine Marwick, Penguin Books, 1976.
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/Lawless_State.html

 

Here's more:

 

Agreed. No change is necessary. Just as the constitution gives us free speech,(even though it may be hate speech) It also gives us the right to assemble in peaceful protest. If the line is crossed and violence is advocated or perpetrated then other remedies are available.

 

Here's more:

 

That they're 'always surprised' reveals the depth of forethought that goes into their hysterical demands.

 

Two pages, and I have yet to read an argument in favor of hate speech laws that is nothing more than mere opinion.

 

Elite American universities really Love Big Brother.

"Without the elite and its artificially induced inability to
understand facts as facts, to distinguish between truth and falsehood, the
movement could never move in the direction of realizing its fiction. The
outstanding negative quality of the totalitarian elite is that it never stops to
think about the world as it really is and never compares the lies with reality."
THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, By Hannah Arendt, Meridian Books, Cleveland, New York, 1958.
https://archive.org/stream/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/The-Origins-of-Totalitarianism_djvu.txt

 

For instance:

"...he described the speech [by Hitler] as a "genuinely statesmanlike address.' ... 'We have heard once more ... the authentic voice of a genuinely civilized people.' ... 'to deny today that Germany can speak as a civilized power because uncivilized things are being done in Germany is in itself a deep form of intolerance." Walter Lippmann praising Hitler, from Ronald Steele, "Walter Lippmann and The American Century", p.331.

 

America has a federal hate speech law.

 

Hate speech is the purpose of free speech; to protect the unpopular from the majority’s call for hemlock. Which is exactly what hate speech laws are: Political hemlock to kill the independent mind.

 

For example, I hold this thought as truth: A belief in God is a delusion of fools. (For the record, I do hold that thought as truth.) In some nations that thought is illegal under penalty of death. Thankfully, not America, regretfully she is sliding towards that evil.

BTW: Doesn’t no mean no? So what’s the argument about?

“Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” Quite unambiguous, is it not?

 

We have hate speech laws. They're weak though compared to European countries and Canada. So the question is adding new laws, but rather revising how we decide to talk about freedom of speech.

 

Ah, how about...uh, I don’t know...maybe, freely?

 

Nope. "Sticks and Stones" and all that crap.

 

Sounds like you're advocating for limiting speech. That can't be right, can it?

 

More like I'm clarifying a concept. As for limiting speech? Meh. I don't really have any opinions either way on the subject. There's speech we don't want in public, and sometimes there's speech we need to here.