Skip to comments.Mass. senator seeks to regulate TV, Internet, radio for ‘hate crimes’ (Markey)
Posted on 05/01/2014 9:08:28 AM PDT by jazusamo
Democrat Sen. Edward Markey from Massachusetts says the government should crack down on broadcast messages that promote what he calls hate crimes, by regulating content on television, radio and the Internet.
Hes proposed commissioning a government study to find ways to stop the broadcast outlets from encouraging hate crimes through their various communications, Breitbart reported.
But First Amendment supporters say it cant be done.
This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly, said civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate, in Breitbart. It is dangerous. It is not up to Sen. Markey, nor to the federal government, to define for a free people what speech is and is not acceptable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Hate Crime = Conservative Speaking
The biggest hate crime here is Markey being foisted upon the people of Assachusetts! He cannot even rise to the level of “moron”! For Eddie that would be a goal!
The EXEMPT are hated because they deliberately
keep the US Borders wide open while arming al Qaeda,
and deliberately invite terrorists in to murder,
such as with the Boston Atrocity.
In the place of their Oath, the hated EXEMPT
such as ice-cream salesman Markey
are going after Americans.
This cannot possibly end well.
Exactly...Can you imagine the party 0bama, Reid, Pelosi, Holder and most all Dems would have should a bill like this pass?
0bama would be calling on all of them to submit suggestions for executive orders.
That would depend on who is defining the ‘hate crime’.
It would change from political administration to administration.
This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to muzzle free speech.
The idea is wrought with unintended consequences.
Infringing on our liberties is about as hateful as it gets.
I am free to hate whomever I choose to hate, Mr. Markey.
There is no such thing as a hate crime.
Mr. Markey is a madman.
Well said by you both.
We have a First Amendment for a reason but leftists abhor it.
I disagree. The people who voted for him ARE idiots, but Markey is a statist who wants total government control over every aspect of our lives. He's far worse than an idiot. He's a dangerous wannabe tyrant.
What makes you think the consequences are unintended?
You make an excellent point, especially with the dangerous wannabe tyrant part.
I find two things that unsettle me.
1. Markey was NOT “foisted” on the people of Mass. He was duly and legally VOTED into that office. (Not by me)
2. Alan Dershowitz is beginning to make statements I agree with. One of us is going off the rails. Anyway, when he is correct, he is correct.
Hate crime is defined by whomever is in power.
I don’t get it.
I am already forced to contribute tax money to media (NPR/PBS) that regularly engage in hate speech.
If Markey wants to stop “hate speech” on the air, how about gov’t stop funding it? Just as a first step.
Wonder if we Commonwealth denizens’ll be allowed to post here on Freep.
Remember, this is the land that’s enforcing anti-gun legislation via the quasi-legal ‘Attorney General’s Safety Regulations’.
In a thoroughly Marxian republic, neither the law nor common sense means anything.
One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal.
Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods.
If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means.
And who are its enemies?
It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines.
In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.
This argument was used, for instance, to justify the Russian purges.
The most ardent Russophile hardly believed that all of the victims were guilty of all the things they were accused of. but by holding heretical opinions they ‘objectively’ harmed the régime, and therefore it was quite right not only to massacre them but to discredit them by false accusations.
The same argument was used to justify the quite conscious lying that went on in the leftwing press about the Trotskyists and other Republican minorities in the Spanish civil war.
And it was used again as a reason for yelping against habeas corpus when Mosley was released in 1943.
These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you.
Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists.
As if this government would ever stamp out the works of those against Christianity. The Leftists in government use taxpayer money to FUND them.