Advocates call the law a necessary control on hate speech in an age where the Internet makes the spread of messages easier and faster. Opponents say it’s censorship and has no place in a free society.
Not only are we divided on whether hate speech should be legal, we are divided on what it should be.
Is it hate speech to call other races subhumans, but legal to note in a scientific paper that there IQ differences between races, moral evolutionary differences, that there is a biological basis to race and ethnicity or even that statistically, crime is not distributed evenly between all groups?
Half of scientists say race doesn’t exist, the others keep quiet.
The bigger issue here is what we’re obscuring the pursuit of truth with all sorts of social pretense.
“Hate” speech, in my view, would be a placing of emotion before logic, like screaming about hating an ethnic group to the world.
Logical speech however can include some things our society finds taboo:
- Critique of diversity as an idea
- Critique of democracy, equality and “peace” as goals
- Noting differences in ability between social classes, ethnicities, races, national origins, genders and professions
- Noting the pattern of history identified by Plato, Spengler, Toynbee, Nietzsche, etc. that shows us democracy and diversity are end-stages of dying civilizations
These things are all taboo, but must be discussed — we must pick a better future. Putting them on par with some idiot screaming about how he hates an ethnic group is slander to what are legitimate arguments.
[...] only are we divided on whether hate speech should be legal, we are divided on what it should be. Hate speech laws reveal human confusion | AMERIKA I think this concept is hard as hell to justify. "Screaming fire in a theater"? [...]
So what if people hate? Is it wrong to hate Negroes or Spics because a disproportionate number of them are dumb, immoral, envious & incompetent retards & the half-breeds are just slightly intelligent but equaly base? NO! To hate Gooks however, is wrong because they’re superior to Whites, whereas the Gooks are justified in hating Whites & Negroes but Negroes have no right hating anyone. Hate is underrated & necessary but must be controled to be constructive.
I remember a little girl on asking for advise on Yahoo Answers about her church youth group dressing a period characters for the old west. Well, all she got was hate speech — even though there was nothing inherently disrespectful in what she wrote she was accused of advocating *genocide* and treated as if she had announced a plan to go to the nearest “Indian” reservation and shoot everyone she could find. What’s worst, the post had to be placed twice, and was deleted both time because the ultra-liberals in charge of the site also deleted it once (she was bullied into deleting it again). As I’m not religious, I would normally not have been involved, but I had to take up for her in this instance.
The point of this is this — such much of the media is either controlled by brainwashed ultra-liberals OR afraid of being sued by them (thus controlled indirectly) that the censorship is already here — its difficult to post any non-liberal or otherwise non-conformist views because most sites and host already forbid them and police their territory to eliminate them. This law is just one more nail in the already nearly sealed coffin of free speech.