“’It is a strong signal in terms of regulation,’ said Sonia Cisse, a counsel at law firm Linklaters, adding that it was a world first. ‘Hate speech is no longer considered part of freedom of speech, it’s now on the same level as terrorism.’”
This heralds the end of France as a free society and, if this spreads to other nations, as it likely will, the imminent death of other free societies in the West. This is because the banning of “hate speech” amounts in reality to the classification of anything those in power dislike as “hate speech,” and its banning.
“Hate speech” is not remotely in the same category as terrorism; the most obvious difference is that hateful or insulting speech does not result in the death of anyone. “Hate speech” is a subjective judgment. What is actually designated as “hate speech” depends on what the person doing the judging believes is offensive and hateful. I think opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others is what everyone should do if he or she believes in the dignity of every human person and a free, pluralistic society in which people of differing beliefs and ideologies live together with mutual respect. But powerful bodies such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Southern Poverty Law Center have long classified such opposition as “hate speech.” And now Facebook is paving the way for those who engage in this so-called hate speech to be prosecuted.
The very concept of “hate speech” is, in reality, a tool of the powerful, used to silence the powerless. The political and media elites have decided, for whatever reason, that opposing jihad terror and speaking honestly about its ideological roots is “hate speech.” And so they will snuff it out, and we are well on the way now to the prosecution, imprisonment, and worse of those who engage in it. But this is not something that will save free societies by removing those who supposedly are the causes of strife. It will be the end of free societies, and the beginning of another era of totalitarian darkness and oppression.
“Exclusive: In a world first, Facebook to give data on hate speech suspects to French courts,” by Mathieu Rosemain, Reuters, June 25, 2019:
PARIS (Reuters) – In a world first, Facebook has agreed to hand over the identification data of French users suspected of hate speech on its platform to judges, France’s minister for digital affairs Cedric O said on Tuesday.
O, whose father is South Korean, is one of French President Emmanuel Macron’s earliest followers, and has been influential in shaping the president’s thinking on Big Tech as an advisor at the Elysee palace in the first two years of Macron’s presidency.
The decision by the world’s biggest social media network comes after successive meetings between Zuckerberg and Macron, who wants to take a leading role globally on the regulation of hate speech and the spread of false information online….
“It is a strong signal in terms of regulation,” said Sonia Cisse, a counsel at law firm Linklaters, adding that it was a world first. “Hate speech is no longer considered part of freedom of speech, it’s now on the same level as terrorism.”…
nicu says
Facebook only allows what Muslims post – they don’t even check Arabian or Turkish language – I was banned there almost 2 years – even the word ” Muslim ” is hate speech and when you report crimes – you get banned for 30 days — I hope it will go down – I left it meanwhile – they remove posts so quickly you don’t believe it – we call it STASI – book !
Paul J says
I call it FascistBook. The sooner this nerd Suckerberg steps in front of bus the better. As for France, where o where is Joan of Arc when you need her.
b.a. freeman says
*EXCELLENT* name for it, nicu!
+1
Kilauea says
Facebook should change its name to “Snitchbook.” Apparently Facebook has never heard, “Snitches get stitches.”
CRUSADER says
US Rep. Max Rose notes that Tech Giants have not funded sufficient monitoring for terrorist propaganda on social media….
b.a. freeman says
… and we *all* know what “terrorist” means to stasiBook!
William A Carr says
This kind of thing has not been seen since Nazi Germany when if anyone spoke against Hitler or any Nazi official they were pounced on by the Gestapo and placed in a concentration camp. It is also the usual practice in countries like China, Turkey and Iran.
gravenimage says
Oh, it’s been seen, all right–but not in the free West.
Shivers says
I’m old, get that out of the way, but, I remember when Germany was a civilized, cultured country, no one would believe that they became what they became under Hitler. It can happen anywhere.
mortimer says
Agree with Shivers. This process of Nazification is occurring throughout Western countries in the name of globalism. Anyone who objects is demonized and silenced. When opposition voices all have been silenced, the Global-Fascists will proceed unimpeded to their totalitarian agenda.
Westman says
French citizens should realize by accepting this privacy-violating information the French government is now actively spying on its own citizens as part of a new Global Feudal System that intends to make them vassals of the EU. This social media giant behavior is ushering in “1984” on a scale never imagined by Orwell. This is a new communism. Will the Brits get the message and escape while still able?
CogitoErgoSum says
There’s a word for this. It’s called being “zucked.”
b.a. freeman says
thanks for the heads-up, Cogito! that’s one new verb i’ll be certain to be using soon!
Westman says
This is beyond Communism, this is the Big Brother Network proving that, “knowledge is power”. Google is now intending to control the next election, Facebook is doing the equivalent of 1950’s Russian children reporting on their parent listening to VOA, and the MSM is reporting its own biases; not to report, rather, to influence.
J D S says
Leave Facebook..in the trash can where it belongs. Anyone or any organization that would do this are pure traitors.
Walter Sieruk says
Just last year Facebook three different times put me a thirty day ban under the heading of “hate speech ” for posting essays ,I had keyboarded , that a took a stand against Muslim terrorism.
This year Facebook very early in this month of June early put me ,again, a under other thirty day band from their site for posting two essays they labeled “hate speech” which Facebook also claimed my two postings was a violation of their “community standards.”
Therefore , here is repeat of one of my postings that the politically correct Facebook people found to be such an “awful. offence.”
“Don’t let them fool you, the many apologists for Islam is will endeavor to set up a smokescreen to hide the reality of the truth about the violence and deadly essence of Islam by making the bogus claim that the al Qaeda operatives mass murderer on 9/11 were not real Muslims and that they were breaking the laws of the Qu ‘ran by their violence and deadly actions.” The apologists for Islam will further make the totally false claim that “Those terrorists on 9/11 were only criminals who hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam for Politics.” Those outrageously false claims are weak attempt of damage control for the image of Islam to the West. For the “holy book” of Islam the Qu ‘ran. For the Qu ‘ran instruct in Sura 9:111. Muslims who are engaging the jihad that “The believer’s fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain ,they kill and are killed “ That’s just what happened on September 11, 2001 the jihadists of al Qaeda “killed and were killed” in those 9/11 jihad attacks against both humankind and America. The Quran also teaches in Sura 9:123 to that jihad –minded Muslims behavior towards non-Muslims “let them find harshness in you…” Those Islamic attacks on 9/11 were indeed very “harsh.” As Sura 2:191 instructs “kill the disbeliever wherever you find them.” That’s a very strange kind of “peaceful religion” if there ever was one. Just to site one more out on many from the Qu ‘ran about the instruction of deadly violence is Sura 47:4. Which instructs “Whenever you encounter unbelievers strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them …” Let’s face it, using jet planes a missiles as those jihadist/ Muslims did of September 11, sure made a greater “slaughter among them” then sword can. Wake up West to the actual nature of Islam before it’s too late.”
This above is what got the Facebook staff to upset that they banned me for thirty days.
gravenimage says
Appalling, Walter. Your posts are always very measured and never call for violence–there is no excuse for banning you.
CRUSADER says
There needs to be an alternative to use aside from Farcebook….
John knight says
Their are, try Telegram or MeWe they are not as slick as Facebook but they are uncensored.
Cindy R says
telegram is really fantastic.Try it
marc says
Personally I’d go with Signal
https://www.securemessagingapps.com/
Paul J says
Nothing wrong with that post, with their OWN quotes from Qur’an and sura to back it up. The truth is hate speech to those who hate the truth. Your bans undoubtedly prove that.
Bill says
Linklaters is a massive international law firm with a client base consisting of large global corporate businesses and financial institutions that are driving the globalist/socialist agenda to destroy free speech, individual liberties and freedom. I suppose my comment is considered hate speech by Linklaters. Too bad.
Another reason to avoid Facebook in my opinion.
CRUSADER says
Farcebook has – for many – replaced
the OTHER book:
The Bible !!!
Paul J says
Ain’t that the truth. F##k FascistBook.
Walter Sieruk says
My other essay that Facebook “affront” which they claimed was in violation of their “community standards” that Facebook banned my for thirty days was the posting of this specific essay which the following.
“Those Muslim migrants who were allowed to enter Britain a along with the other countries of Western Europe with result in them not only being ungrateful but even worse yet many of those Muslim migrants becoming so very arrogant to the point that they became criminals . As in some of them engaged in rioting and even rapes of the European girls and women. In addition to this vile brutal behavior by the heinous Muslim who were kindly permitted to enter the nations of Europe to live, As the countries of ,for example France, Germany Sweden, Denmark etc. This unthankful Islamic spirit on the part of those lawless violent Muslims who immigrated to the countries of Europe may be explain, in part, by the fact that the Muslim fundamentalist group that even had the president of Egypt assassinated in the month of October of the year 1981 has a fifty –five booklet that is was written only for Muslims fundamentalists but was later discover by non-Muslims. This booklet’s title is THE NEGLECTED DUTY. One scholar, Johannes Jansen who had thoroughly investigated Islam and Islamic terrorism has even discover that those Muslims, who had entered Europe of behaved in violent and heinous ways, are actually action out what they view and a sacred individual duty of the jihad as by engaging in awful violent criminal action in non-Muslim lands . As Jansen revealed that jihad booklet of Islam, THE NEGLECTED DUTY “contains all the ideological material needed to justify the attacks of 9/11 or any other acts of terror committed to frighten non-Muslims. And he thinks the document explains the criminal behavior of suburban and center –city immigrant youngsters in many European cities; its author clearly ‘sees Islam as license to kill rob and commit arson.’ “ [1] Nevertheless, many of the apologists for Islam still have that blatant gall , in spite of all the facts of reality, to actually make the claim the Islam is a “peaceful religion.” What a totally false to make that Islam is “a peaceful religion “What Bull! A “peaceful religion” indeed.
[1] THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM by Ibn Warraq pages 308, 309.”
It’s very obvious that the “Community Standards” of Facebook a actually pro-Islam and pro -Islamic terrorism standards
“
gravenimage says
All demonstrably true, Walter.
Paul J says
Again nothing wrong that post either. I’d like to get a copy of that book, The Neglected Duty, so I can smack every traitorous muslim apologist I come across in the face with it. HARD copy preferably.
CRUSADER says
Silicon Valley US Rep. Ro Khanna
wants to limit President Trump’s War Powers.
Khanna has a new amendment out for Congressional review
which Liz Cheney is against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro_Khanna
Walter Sieruk says
Can is really be possible that the “top brass” who head Facebook are so blind and ignorant and so lacking in understanding that they view Truth Expounding as hate speech.” ?
Likewise , is is also possible that the higher up Facebook chiefs fail to understand and see that real, actual, hate speech come from the imams who preach, indoctrinate hate , for Christian and Jews, into the hearts of mind of young and impressionable Muslims in the mosques ?
This vicious hate speech by the imams sometimes has the results of young Muslim attacking Christian and Jews, occur, many times after the Friday mosque service especially after the hate speech of the imams who preach and teach awful things and about and against Jews and Christians. That’s real hate speech.
b.a. freeman says
i believe that it *IS* possible for the head honchos at stasiBook – most of them, anyway – to be unaware of the true nature of islam, Walter, and here is why.
here in the u.s., the hard-core left has controlled university education *completely* since the 1970s, and *ALL* education since the 1990s. furthermore, education in eurabia has been under their control since the last couple of decades of the *19th* century. the left does not encourage independent, critical thinking unless it has nothing to do with politics and most of ordinary life; thus, they make sure *NOT* to teach it in their indoctrination centers. all of these top brass are products of this education system, so for the most part, the only ideas to which they have ever been exposed are leftist. if one cannot think for oneself, one must look to others for answers, and conveniently, the “smart people” – all leftists – at universities always have an answer; their lies are told quietly both in private and in public interviews, but their ideas are trumpeted from the rooftops by the compliant media, whose personnel – U guessed it – all came through the public indoctrination system, as well. finally, everybody in government service also comes through the same indoctrination system, so they also tend to have a leftist bias; furthermore, many, having been taught to use leftist approaches to solving public issues, see no problem with law-breaking so long as it furthers the “good” … which is always leftist.
of course, this does not mean that *everybody* at the top at stasiBook, Googal, Twister, et al., are uneducated nominal leftists; in fact, i would be surprised if there were no hard-core leftists to be found there. a true believer at or near the top is in a *far* better position to “influence” issues than somebody who only parrots the lies of others, and the left is so close to seizing power that i seriously doubt that their head honchos can stop themselves from getting and using such jobs. i’m just saying that probably 98% of the top folks are only nominally leftist because they have never known anything else, and readily believe leftist thought leaders.
finally, all of these social media platforms use AI to filter the posts of their users, if only to provide protection from lawsuits by victims of those arranging violent attacks on their platforms. it always helps to give guidance to such AI filters, and Googal, for one, uses about 10 000 people as “search quality” evaluators, or raters. these folks see the results of searches for various potentially controversial issues *WITHOUT* any filtering whatsoever, then rate the “quality” of each result. Googal put out a document (dated 2017-07-27 in its internal PDF info) as a guide for these folks, and in section 7.9 (“Promotion of Hate or Violence”), they tell them “[t]he Pew Research Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are some reputable sources that can be used for reputation research.” the Pew Research Center is, AFAIK, reliable, but the ADL and the SPLC are both virulently leftist propaganda smear machines. if these 10 000 raters are rating sites as “lowest quality,” then the AI algorithm will recognize key words and phrases from them and rate then as hate sites. needless to say, JW rates at the bottom because of the lies of the SPLC, and virtually unrelated content bubbles to the top of searches when one looks for islam. thus, the lying/blind/uneducated tools – or traitors – running these sites ensure that the truth will never be told, and don’t even have to think about it, because the whole process is automagic.
and *THAT* is why stasiBook banned U, Walter; it wasn’t even a person who did it. i’m sure a person looked at your protests (eventually), but your name is no doubt are on a list, and your posts will *NEVER* again get through reliably, and they will almost certainly let every 30-day suspension stand … because they hate U in the same impersonal, dispassionate, mechanical way the nazis hated and murdered so many jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and other innocent victims in the 1930s and 1940s.
sieg heil … the nazis have won.
gravenimage says
Agreed, b.a. freeman. And while techies are very intelligent, as a group they tent to be uninformed about anything outsider the tech sector. I’m sure most of then have completely swallowed the party line that Islam is a “religion of peace” that that Muslims are threatened by “Islamophobes”.
Frank Secreto says
These people are every bit the match for Stalin, Hitler or Mao. If or when (G-D forbid) circumstances permit, Zuckerberg et al. will toss all of us “onto trains” without the slightest bit of remorse. That’s how committed they’re to their fetid ideology.
Angemon says
gravenimage says
Facebook to give data on “hate speech” suspects to French courts: “on the same level as terrorism”
………………………..
My guess is that in most cases this “hate speech” is not those preaching terrorism, but those daring to oppose it.
More crushing of freedom of speech.
tgusa says
This is just a continuation of the doctrine that I refer to as the western leftist taliban. Big tech resides in what should be referred to as Taliban Valley.
A modification of the description of actual taliban doctrine designed to hi-light the similarities with the leftist taliban.
The leftist taliban is a pseudo-religious dictatorship.
The group is known to excommunicate or kill those who do not follow their radical interpretation of leftist beliefs.
They believe that such attacks are part of their jihad, or holy war, and a fundamental component of their leftist beliefs.
They use their leftist ideology and their radical pseudo-religious interpretations to justify their attacks.
The leftist taliban believes that the world is divided into infidels and believers or followers of the leftist faith.
Unapproved television cinema and music are also banned by the leftist taliban.
I could go on and on but I think the above is enough.
gravenimage says
I am *no* fan of this disgusting crushing of freedom of speech, but where have Western high tech companies had people *killed*?
tgusa says
Sigh… “A modification of the description of actual taliban doctrine designed to hi-light the similarities with the leftist taliban.”
Big tech is just a part of the leftist taliban. So far big tech has not killed anyone outright, that I know of unless we consider killing businesses, killing the chance for non leftists to support their families etc. However, the leftist taliban has come close, Steve Scalise comes to mind, very close. Give it time.
gravenimage says
You needn’t sigh. You specifically wrote: “The group is known to excommunicate or kill those who do not follow their radical interpretation of leftist beliefs.”
Really, there is enough that is appalling about big tech’s censorship–as above–exaggerations are not necessary.
tgusa says
I specifically referred to the leftist Taliban under my modification of the description intro. Big tech is “a part” of that “group”. Has big tech censorship of jihad, jihadist ideology and jihadist atrocities led to the deaths of anyone who if they had not been misled regarding the truth may have made a more informed decision and therefore would still be alive today? Did big tech literally wield the knife, no they didn’t. Ok, so big tech has not yet physically ventured in to the realm of murder. They are accessories and that is not an exaggeration. The question is, just how far will big tech go?
Paul J says
Ask Hilary and Soros. They are in bed with Big Tech. No different than a driver charged with murder who accomplices shoot a bank teller in a hold up.
gravenimage says
OK–I still think that accuracy is important, though. If we say that technology companies are going around whacking people, it just distracts from the bad things they are *actually* doing.
Wellington says
Just as the world would be better without Islam, so would it be better without Facebook, which I regularly call Farcebook. Trouble is that when bad occurs it is deuce or triple difficult to get rid of it. Think Islam as a prime example. Farcebook is a much more recent addition to this freedom-destroying and infamous list.
gravenimage says
Meanwhile, here is another story from today:
“Apple still won’t drop Muslim Brotherhood “Euro Fatwa” App, deemed ‘disaster waiting to happen’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/apple-still-wont-drop-muslim-brotherhood-euro-fatwa-app-deemed-disaster-waiting-to-happen
Apparently preaching Jihad in Europe is not hate speech…
underbed cat says
Very dangerous to hand over a list of names of speech offenders. Will France hand over Nortre Dame next? Allow a foreign law ? Yes, very appalling. Survival for now, unless Facebook can devise a second Facebook for countries for sharia sensitive that feel it is their duty to suppress speech or words out of the Quran. This is not their domain to rule, jihad is sedition, appeasing will be no long term solution. France cannot do this to the citizens of France….study the doctrine and understand the dangers. Truth cannot be the new hate speech. Speech is speech, only some will resort to make it death. Don’t aid them to injure or suppress free French. Remove sharia laws or France will be swallowed by deception and war, that is their nature to avoid.
gravenimage says
+1
Sue says
France’s government (whichever is in power at time throughout history) has always been known to give up its citizens and to kiss the proverible a** of whoever was claiming to be their betters. Nazi’s come to mind. It is only when the government of France has completely turned its back on its own peoples that those few with a spine finally say enough is enough and start to revolt. Always late. Then they expect other countries to bail them out of their own stupidity.
I count pretty much all of Europe in this now. All idiots kowtowing to those who claim to be more superior then everyone else in the world.
As much as China is vilified world wide with its totaltarian regime and stomping on any and all religins, I think they alone are the smart ones stamping down that most vile religion like the festering swamp it is.
The rest of the world is to politically correct and needs to get their collective heads out of their butts and wake the hell up before this sorry excuse for a religion takes over everyone and everything.
Alse I honestly believe there will be a world war to end all wars. people are getting fed up and the prespective governments need to realize the people won’t stand for much more before things will need to change. If violence is their only answer then it will be a bloody end.
Don’t come crying to us then. You will have made your bed and you can dam sure lie in it.
Lavéritétriomphera says
“It is only when the government of France has completely turned its back on its own peoples that those few with a spine finally say enough is enough and start to revolt. Always late.”.
The ennemies are delighted when they hear this sort of pessimist commentary. To dishearten the adversaries is the core part of psychological warfare.
If you had studied French long history, you’d know we nearly disappeared but we are still there. I particularly have in mind the One Hundred Years War.
Islam will disappeared, at least in its current form, because it is not well adapted to the modern world.
Lydia Church says
This time it’s ‘connect the dots’ and see where the projections lead.
Dot:
1. Creeping sharia.
2. Pakistan blasphemy laws wielding power on social media in the WEST.
3. Censorship in general of anything conservative and anti-islam or anti-terrorism.
4. Plans to decriminalize sodomy worldwide. What that translates into is the same thing; any speech against it will be criminalized. I’m not talking about ‘not throwing gays off of rooftops’ anymore. I’m talking about the state coming after anyone who opposes sodomy, period. Orwellian tyranny. The UN is behind such moves too.
5. The UN plan to criminalize the criticism of islam (yesterday’s post).
6. This move here about facebook cooperating with the government in France to criminalize ‘hate speech,’ (on social media).
And of course there are more dots but you get the picture…
……
Soon:
7. Any speech the global establishment does not agree with, including anti-terrorism ironically, will be dubbed ‘hate speech’ and as a result… they will soon be knocking on your door, in one form or another.
In Orwell’s world; anti-terrorism is terrorism.
And don’t think the atrocities of past tyrannies can’t repeat themselves.
Oh, and advocating for self defense… is not ‘hate speech’ either!
If anyone disagrees then let them go and apologize to the nazi’s.
I think I’ve made my point clear!
; )
CRUSADER says
The AntiChrist will emerge from the Social Media / Tech world
with a “plan to save everyone”….etc….
CRUSADER says
Companies like FaRcebook have been repeatedly criticised over the power the data they collect gives them….
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/phones-antichrist-church-russian-orthodox-data-gathering-facebook-patriarch-kirill-a8717511.html
Phones and other smart devices are bringing humanity closer to the arrival of the Antichrist, according to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The data-gathering capacity of the devices are helping create a vast web of information that could be used to control people, he said.
In an interview shown on state TV, Patriarch Kirill said the church does not oppose technological progress but is concerned that ” someone can know exactly where you are, know exactly what you are interested in, know exactly what you are afraid of ” — and that such information could be used for centralized control of the world.
“Control from one point is a foreshadowing of the coming of Antichrist, if we talk about the Christian view. Antichrist is the person who will be at the head of the world wide web that controls the entire human race,” he said.
He seemed to suggest that a better approach would be to spread the kinds of data that we collect around the internet. “If we don’t want to bring the apocalypse closer, there should be no single [control] centre,” Patriarch Kirill said in the interview.
The warning comes during increasing concern about the power that is being assembled by data-gathering companies like Facebook, which watch how people scroll around the internet and then use that data to try and influence consumers.
Facebook tracks Android users even if they don’t have an account…
Paul J says
Look for a product or service online and days later you are seeing ads for that company anytime you go online for some completely different reason. There’s your proof.
gravenimage says
Sadly, though, Patriarch Kirill also castigates the West for not taking in more Muslims as Russia does.
As for tech, it is a mixed bag–it also encompasses sites like Jihad Watch, which educate people about the threat of Islam.
underbed cat says
Putin might have just as much of a problem with the Russian techies as the U.S..I did not years ago realize that Russia always had muslims communities, they were more I think were more quiet, more subdued but with the migration from the ME of muslims to Russia a mosque was built in St. Petersburg. They have experienced terrorism, Beslan School, train stations and bus attacks in the past. I beleive Putin first allowed the reopening of Churches. The mosque may have recieved money came from SA.? Russians have had tech training for their citizens who recieved university training long ago. Think space station. Saudi Arabia alliance with Russia hopefully will not be the end game. For someone who as a child remembers fear of the Cuban Crisis I hope Russia still has some sense of humanity they pulled out.after pressure, they are also aware of the destructive possibility and have some value of life. I am not sure about freedom of speech. The muslim techies may call it hate speech. Not sure how that flies. Hopefully Putin reads the doctrine…to investigate, a Russian wrote the Mosque of Notre Dame…how strange.
Barb says
Pride comes before a fall! The arrogance of Facebook will be their downfall!
Surely they should be listed as treasonous and thus terrorists!
Islam declared war on the West 1400 ++ years ago and reiterated that war at 9/11!
Technically Facebook are being complicit with a self declared enemy of the West.
The Definition of TREASON is: “the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.”
Facebook is betraying every Western Country that has allowed them to have an internet presence in!
They are especially guilty of betraying their own country America!
Mark Swan says
In America is the right to think and express our very own thoughts frankly and openly — it is a freedom that some in America fear.
Of course, some argue that First Amendment law should be viewed to allow bans on hate speech.
Going on assumption that exception already exists.
No such exception could be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be scrutinized, openly by all.
Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, or anything else that current constitutional law forbids.
But those who want to make such arguments, should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law, and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. So everyone can be on the same page.
Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t just rely on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors, and all others, are supposed to distinguish between the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” does not, do that.
There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.
One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or Blacks, or Whites, or Illegal Aliens, or Native-Born Citizens — as one is to condemn Capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. Free to speak freely, their true thoughts, out loud, even.
Our individual right to speak freely, is what some want to stop.
If these thought bullies win, everyone loses.
gravenimage says
Fine post.
CRUSADER says
As Dennis Prager points out about Religion,
it must be challenged and debated, elsewise it can’t be learned about
and can’t be learn from.
CRUSADER says
2nd Amendment backs up and supports and defends the First!
UNCLE VLADDI says
ALL liberal “hate-speech laws” ARE crimes!!!
“The whole concept of “hate speech” (laws against hurt feelings) is political correctness run amok, a leftist anti-free-speech tool that provides an unlimited excuse to shut down and punish anyone who openly disagrees with establishment dicta. Every totalitarian state has similar laws designed to protect the rulers. Such laws have no place in a free society.”
– Patrick1984 –
But Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Virginia v. Black (2003), Snyder v. Phelps (2011) These SCOTUS cases show that unpopular speech is still protected speech.
SO: What is “hate-speech” and why should it be considered a crime if it’s NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)?
If it’s not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech – or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one’s life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating – then it’s THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of ‘hurt feelings!’ So it isn’t objectively “offensive,” but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively “offended” by their potential intended victims being notified about THEIR offenses!
Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, all criminals will resort to using emotive ‘arguments’ to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) can be relied on to try to criminalize hurt feelings and to make offending people, (i.e: the criminals, by accusing them of their crimes) illegal, too!
ALL “Hate-Speech Laws” ARE CRIMES!
“Progressive” criminals – who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims’ rights – pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).
So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!
Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?
NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.
Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed – that’s just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts – but because it’s fraudulent slander.
Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!
Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!
….
Further, ALL politicians who craft “hate-speech laws” and ALL cops who arrest people for “hate-speech crimes” and ALL lawyers and judges who prosecute people for them, should themselves be fired and JAILED for putting “hurt feelings” before FACTS!
Especially in the case of islam!
Pretending that the global crime-gang called islam is a “race” of poor swarthy animal-people, oppressed by the mentally superior whites, in order to slander everyone who notices it’s a crime-gang as a hatefully bigoted “racist” – is to deliberately enable that crime-gang’s crimes by hiding and destroying the evidence of same, and thus to be a willing accessory to those crimes. Since islam is a murder-gang, and the penalty for committing and enabling the commission of murder is DEATH, anyone and everyone who calls an opponent of muslims, islam, and their global jihad, a “racist!” should be lawfully put to death.
Everyone who defends islam and muslims endorses crime.
Endorsing crime IS a crime, so those doing it are criminals.
Right in the Qur’an is: the permission to murder Jews and Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize all non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls (65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one’s true goals (3:54), and the command to make war on all the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire world to Allah (9:33).
Are death-threats legal? NO.
Is extortion legal? NO.
Is slavery legal? NO.
Is murder legal? NO.
Is rape legal? NO.
THEN ISLAM IS ILLEGAL!
Rape, slavery, robbery, extortion and murder are never OK!
Everything muslims pretend to see as “holy” is already a crime!
So nobody has a legal right to practice islam anywhere on earth!
…
IN TRYING TO MAKE CRITICISM OF THE GLOBAL CRIME GANG CALLED “ISLAM” INTO A CRIME, TO PROTECT THAT CRIME GANG BY HIDING THE EVIDENCE OF ITS CRIMES, SUCH PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS TO RATIONALITY, CIVILIZATION, AND HUMANITY ITSELF.
But hadn’t you heard?! Being angry at (“hateful” towards) criminals is now the most vile sin, while pitying (“tolerating”) them all as “equally-helpless fellow victims,” is to be deemed the highest moral virtue, these days!
So much so, that the only advice we hear from “our” hypocrite governments, their pet media, and the corporazi globalist banksters who own them all, seems to invariably be:
“Anyone who doesn’t automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!”
Which is why hurting the feelings of criminals by accusing them of their crimes, is now a “hateful” crime itself!
gravenimage says
Thank you, Uncle Vladdi, for speaking out.
CRUSADER says
Pretend for the moment that we aren’t talking about Islam.
Wouldn’t much of the above be condemned as a hateful ideology
which must be fought and contained and countered?
Then, interject the label/title of Islam upon it, and note how quickly
it gets sanctified and protected and allowed to flourish….
Joel C. says
Again proof to never give your real name or email or anything similar to companies on the internet. Some day it will be used against you. And remember if it’s free YOU are the product. Think about it. Also use a VPN. Look that up, because soon they’ll be going after everybody. Get a tracker block for your browser so Fbook doesn’t follow you around the internet. (WhatsApp (owner:FB) vows to sue users for abuse, even if done outside app!) So block the trackers. —> blocker Ghostery, uBlock Origin. I have both running.
France is finished. Google this term: France migrants Paris And then click on images in the top bar.
And YET the French are not allowed to criticise and openly discuss the current conditions that are endorsed by Macron (who married his “mother”-schoolteacher). Instead Marie Le-Pen the right-wing leader (whom the French should have voted for) is put on trial for tweeting gruesome IS images.
I’m still wondering what’s in it for Zuckerberg since he’s not obliged to hand over anything to France. Can’t be money because France doesn’t have any. So what is it? Big question mark here.
Kay says
At my workplace, we already have such limits on our First Amendment rights. We even have a training where one of the “wrong” answers is that an employee is allowed to say something because of the first amendment.
If there are many other “progressive” workplaces, people will have already become accustomed to regulating themselves to PC or otherwise restricted speech. I realize losing a job isn’t the same as being criminally prosecuted for speech, but the atmosphere is a step in getting the populace to accept restrictions. Indeed, the whole political atmosphere has made it so that fewer opinions are ever expressed and so young people “hear” what FB allows many times more often than the opinions of the various people they might interact with.
Mark Swan says
Yes, Kay, so true,
History records that America was founded on certain principles, beliefs and moral values.
If we reject the values we were founded on then, we better find something else quick that can replace them. So far no offer of a better way has shown itself nearly as effective.
The real issue centers on the questions of what is right, and what is wrong—what is ultimately good, and what is bad and ultimately intolerable? How we answer these questions will determine whether America and the West will continue to follow right and wrong as traditionally practiced, or whether we will embrace the “progressive ideas” promoted by secular, liberal, New Age propagandists.
They say that all values are relative, that absolute truth does not exist, and that people can decide what is appropriate and right for themselves. Will our guide be based on reality or whims of these people? This is the bottom line, tearing at the fabric of Western society.
But there is much more to this battle than just an argument over reality and whims.
What is at stake is the future of Western civilization. We are in the process of tossing overboard the fundamental principles upon which America and the West were built. We are abandoning the central role of sound reasoning in our culture. We seem intent on discarding morality and belief that immutable qualities must govern human behavior.
We are at a crucial “pivotal point” in the history of Western civilization.
By rejecting sound reasoning, we are becoming an increasingly secular, self-indulgent, baseless and weak culture! This is the root cause of our problems.
But how could we be deceived into discarding such valuable principles—principles that shaped our national character?
Today it is the secular, liberal leaders in religion, government, academics and the media that are waging war against traditional values. Like “Pied Pipers” leading our nations to destruction!
By rejecting our own founding laws, rights, culture and history, we are destroying the glue that binds us together, as a whole people.
Louis Joseph Apa (@loujapa) says
This is no surprise to me, AND it may be coming to The USA if the Socialist Democrats prevail in 2020!
sidney penny says
I have read hundreds of articles and and watched hundreds of videos on the subject.
The best is this question and answer by Robert Spencer
If you do does not have time to watch the whole talk just watch the question by the female student who says hate speech is not free speech and there should be banned and see the answer given by Robert Spencer.
The question by the female student is at 200.38 so fast forward to it.
also go to the question by a male student about one point of view at 159.20
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/cal-poly-free-speech-under-attack-in-academia
CRUSADER says
In the cited Q&A above, Spencer gets to respond about:
Hate Speech.
Tool in the hands of the powerful to silence the powerless.
Who decides? Who is the arbiter?
This is a philosophical consideration important to understand.