Posted on 01/18/2013 11:39:15 AM PST by Kaslin
Any serious discussion of “hate speech” laws should start with a consideration of George Orwell’s prophetic look into the future—specifically the book Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Recall that in Orwell’s book, Big Brother sought to control not only all thoughts but also to language used to form thoughts. To that end, he created the language of “Newspeak,” described as “the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year.”
In a separate essay, Orwell explained that Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar.
In the book, this suits the totalitarian regime of the “Party,” whose aim is to make any alternative thinking a “thoughtcrime” or, in the language of Newspeak, a “crimethink.”
The language of Newspeak removes any words or possible word constructs which describe the ideas of independent thinking, freedom, rebellion, disagreement, or unapproved values. The underlying intent of Newspeak, of course, is that if something can’t be said—because the words have been criminalized, banned, or no longer exist—then it is hugely more difficult to think.
There are many lessons to be drawn from Orwell here. Law itself represents society’s standard of conduct, defining acceptable from unacceptable behaviour. The end goal of any criminal law is the elimination of certain specified behaviour. If this is the case—as we know it is—what can we make of a law that bans the mere utterance of certain words.
For those comfortable with this, the ever-expanding use of “hate speech” laws is no cause for alarm. But let me pose a few questions.
Having opened the Pandora’s Box of hate speech laws, and in light of the endless supply of unwanted, stupid, and obnoxious ideas and speech, why not expand these laws to eliminate any speech the state deems bad for society? Having legitimized the banning of certain “dangerous” or “hurtful” words—where do we as a society stop?
Orwell once famously said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” This sentence, I think, sums up the essence of free speech in a truly free society. He and others believed that without the freedom to offend, free speech and free thoughts cannot exist.
Ideas are indeed sometimes dangerous things, especially ideas that seek to challenge or even change the current status quo or existing orthodoxy. Indeed, is there really any point in having certain protections for freedom of speech if there is only freedom to express the most popular or current politically correct ideas and opinions?
The punishing of speech and the expression of certain offensive ideas is a classic slippery slope.
It starts so disarmingly with baby-steps, then gradually gains speed, and in time, gives birth to a society where free speech is no longer free and people whisper words they believe are true for fear of punishment or retaliation. I suggest that unless strong voices are heard—and heard loudly—we may very well usher in a new era of state-enforced censorship, and darkness.
Look no further than Chris Matthew’s, who has tagged every conservative statement to be racist.
This was also a key idea in the book Fahrenheit 451.
Books contained many offensive, scary, and challenging concepts that people started banning them one by one. Nice, bland, non-challenging television became the preferred entertainment and information medium.
Eventually books were illegal, though there were those who hid and hoarded them. All in the name of political correctness and people being granted the right to never be offended, which also meant never to communicate.
“See? You are safe now. The criminal has been apprehended!”
“we may very well usher in a new era of state-enforced censorship, and darkness.”
It’s already here.
Look to Obama and his ministry of propaganda, how he surrounded himself with children -like a dictator in a photo op- and how any speech he deems wrong is banned in his presence.
Recall the recent law curtailing speech in the area of Obama.
Protecting only those from left wing voting blocks is sooo gay. It seriously has to go.
If someone bashes a Christian, should they be punished? How about a gun owner? A woman who decides to let her infant live? How about a successful working man? What about a strong Conservative voter? What about those who believe in heterosexuality and are proud of it? Will they be protected from hate speech, too?
If someone bashes a Christian, should they be punished? How about a gun owner? A woman who decides to let her infant live? How about a successful working man? What about a strong Conservative voter? What about those who believe in heterosexuality and are proud of it? Will they be protected from hate speech, too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of “malicious” or “scandalous” newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment).
Yes this is happening now. Many things labeled ‘hate’ speech or ‘racist’ are not so. But being labeled racist, or hate seems enough to make it seem so.
we must stop this at its roots ...
God bless America.
I am reminded of story a few years back of an older couple that had trees in their front yard. They were concerned for the safety of some rowdy kids in the neighborhood that were constantly climbing in the trees without parental supervision. The lady of the household was heard saying, she did not want the little monkeys climbing trees in her yard because if someone fell she would surely be sued.
Was the neighborhood rallied to find the neglectful parents, protect property rights and teach the children right from wrong? Heck no. They attacked the tree owner for using the word "monkeys" because she was white and the children were black. Never mind the fact that my uncle often called my blonde blue-eyed sister and I little monkeys for playing in his oak tree where he had tied a rope swing.
You know darn well that if someone bashes a Christian, the person will not be punished, but if someone bashes a Muslim....now that is a different story. To all your other points. No they won’t
A few things wrong with “hate speech” laws:
They clearly violate the word and intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
They attempt to criminalize thoughts, not actions, meaning application is based on subjective judgement as opposed to being based on observed or proven facts.
They are applied inconsistently for the purpose of furthering the politically correct agenda of leftists.
Crimes against, or by, favored classes are treated differently than those of classes out of favor.
In this case, you don't even have to utter an ugly word, the listener assumes that you said it by listening to the context and content of your words (Colin Powell and the unspoken "N-word"). Orwell would call it thoughtcrime.
. Similarly, by analyzing your attitude towards an idea, a person or a policy, liberals can accuse you of bias ("If you don't support Obama, that means you're a racist").
We are fast approaching a time when you will be judged by the color of your skin alone.
You're not seeing it.....
Hate speech and hate crime laws only protect those from LEFT WING VOTING BLOCKS.
To prove my point, name one right wing voting block that would be protected by these laws.......You can't. There aren't any.
[ So What’s Wrong With Hate Speech Laws? ]
It all depends on what you term hate is, and what determines being hateful..
AT least half of America has determined being PATRIOTIC as hateful..
And making a profit is HATEFULLY greedy..
And murdering your baby is COMPASSION.. even as it is being BORN..
I see the hate speech/hate crime BS as yet another example of handicapping whites and lowering the bar for blacks. I think it is exactly the same thing as affirmative action, Black Congressional Caucus, hiring quotas, minority scholarships, black farmers settlement checks...all those things that are somehow fine for blacks but forbidden for others.
Rules and laws should apply to all people equally. Men and women should be judged on the quality of their character and never the color of their skin. Anything else is political nonsense.
I remember one time some reporter was trying to play gottcha with Bush by asking him about not passing hate crime after a black guy was pulled by a truck to his death. Bush just looked like that didn’t make any sense and said, ‘the people responsible rec’d the death penalty so I don’t know what more justice can be served’.
I always liked the quote from the historian Jacques Barzun who died recently at the age of 102.
In fact it’s my tagline.
“Political Correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.”
Same applies to affirmative action and all legislation meant to favor one group over another. Those engaged in MindThink are weak know-nothing elitist Jacobins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.