Since the 90s, there has been a lot of talk about “hate speech.” I’m not sure I’ve ever heard or read a definition that wasn’t ambiguous and selective in its application – and certainly not one that is Constitutional. Webster’s New World Law Dictionary defines hate speech as:
Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.I’m not sure under what circumstances, if any, this definition has authority. However, I find it quite characteristic of most definitions for hate speech. I’m afraid this definition would make the entire Republican platform grounds for hate speech prosecution. Clearly a Democrat wrote this.
What was the liberal agenda behind legislating “hate speech?” It all began with the good intentions of “misunderstood” skirts, fags and n…erds. It doesn’t take a history scholar to know that people say some hurtful things.
I believe hate speech legislation originates in the joining of three liberal movements: feminism, gay equality, and black equality. You could throw in Atheists and immigrants, but these two had little sway at the time of this legislation. When liberal groups emerged from the post-Reagan political wasteland, they went crazy trying to get Congress to change many things at once, and few of them went well. [Does not bode well for Obama]
The first amendment protects a citizen’s right to free speech, and even to assemble and shout angrily together. Democrats back in the 90s had the balls to ignore little details like the Constitution, so they tried to write laws that said it wasn’t covered by the first amendment “because…”
Laws can’t contravene the Constitution, even if they come up with a good reason. No laws at the Federal level were passed because of this, but it didn’t stop liberals from trying, and succeeding (i.e. in schools and government institutions).
Let’s look at the definition and try to figure out why it’s full of shit. Right off the bat, “intended to foster hatred” is a loaded statement that doesn’t apply. If someone calls someone else a name, it is not “intended to foster hatred,” except maybe hatred for the name-caller and his jackassery. Once someone is calling someone else a name, it’s not intended to do anything but hurt their feelings. Hate was a “pre-existing condition,” as they say.
This is a basic problem with liberals: because they are not bullies themselves, they struggle to understand the psychology of the bully. A liberal tells their child s/he is bullied because the bully has issues of some nature, usually self-esteem or problems at home. [LOL]
On the political level, liberals tell themselves people use hate speech to foster some sort of conspiracy against them and their censorship club. Of course, it’s not a conspiracy, because conspiracies entail an element of secrecy. Republicans make no secret of being out to get Democrats.
The truth is: it’s just fun to mock someone and see them get really angry. Finding that one thing they’re sensitive about and just hammering at it can be quite rewarding when the other person has been pissing you off. Politically, this is very distracting. And the better you know what they hate hearing, the better you can mock them.
Which brings me to this piece of advice for liberals: quit giving Conservatives a road map to your nerves. Hate speech legislation not only points out all the things liberals hate being mocked about, it empowers banished words.
There shouldn’t be words that are so powerful they can cause jaws to drop. Though the power to use a word can be wielded by anyone, everyone is also imbued with the power to see through the imaginary associations and not react shocked.
You know how to stop a bully? After he trips you, later… much later… kick him in the crotch when the teachers aren’t looking. If he calls you a Nazi, you call him a white cracker who’s so fat he hasn’t seen his dick since his coke days back in the 80s. You don’t run to mommy and daddy to tell them what the mean Republican said; you spar with him.
It’s just not worth convincing yourself there’s any honor in censorship. “Abusive language” is a merely symbolic battle, and to let it spill over into legislation is irresponsible escalation. Worse, it is an acknowledgement of your opponents’ successful tactics – and a refusal to adopt them yourself. Just do what works.
It is best to legislate justice and equality in action, not in speech or thought. Words alone never held anyone down. After all, very few speak well of politicians, lawyers, or bankers, but they’re doing just fine.