“No freedom for hate speech”.
You have to understand what leftists mean by “hate speech”. What they mean is: DISSENTING speech. Dissension from WHAT? From anything they believe.
This includes socialism. This includes gun control. This includes 90 percent tax rates. This includes treating enemies — like Iran, or ISIS — as if they’re actually enemies … and calling them what they are.
Anything non-leftist is “hate speech”. They’ve already established this point psychologically and ideologically. They already have most non-leftists (who will never agree) afraid to say so aloud. I know of literally hundreds of non-leftists “in the closet” about their views. I don’t know of a single leftist who’s like that. Leftists are righteous, perpetually indignant and outraged at the drop of a hat. In such a psychological atmosphere, how long do you think before they’re ready to round up dissenters and give them what they supposedly deserve?
Now get a load of the latest, from a story at Breitbart News:
Researchers at the UK’s University of Cambridge have created a new software technology that treats online “hate speech” as a computer “virus” or “malware.”
The “Hate O’Meter” warns users they are about to view “hate speech” and gives them the option of viewing the content in advance.
Authors of the research Stefanie Ullmann and Marcus Tomalin assert in the journal Ethics and Information Technology that establishment technology platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google merely react to offensive posts by removing them if there are sufficient complaints about them.
Such “reactive” methods, the researchers say, still “cause the recipients psychological harm” because users view the content first, meaning “the harm has already been inflicted.”
Wow. So we can measure “psychological harm” in real, objective terms? If so, what are those criteria?
And how does this square with the standard of a “sufficient number of complaints”? Can’t the majority be wrong? What if a majority, in some context, were Trump supporters or conservatives? Surely the leftists who condemn “hate speech” would not want that as a standard. They intend to rig the process ahead of time, quite clearly. That’s what dictators do.
How do we know harm was inflicted? Merely because the offended party says so? But how can the law be applied to such a totally subjective standard? Make no mistake. The LAW — the compulsive force of government — is what leftists are after. They start with shaming; and they end with the prison, or the gulag. It always ends this way, and America — if leftists get their way — will be no different.
My advice? Fight them while you still can. Fight them verbally, ideologically, intellectually, emotionally and psychologically. Those are powerful weapons. But only while they’re still legal.—Michael J. Hurd