The Unbridled Hate of Hate Speech Laws
January 17, 2014
This analysis was originally published at Because Our Republic Is Worth It.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, is at the heart of our First Amendment right to free speech, at least where the authority of our government is concerned. A free society, and, in fact, a free people, must be able to speak freely in order to challenge power, ideological aggression or the coercion of faction. To limit or eliminate this fundamental right; this essential check to balance, is to limit or eliminate freedom in its most cursory form. Put succinctly, limiting free speech rights is tyranny in its most basic form.
It is for this reason that the Progressive Movement's continued assault on free speech rights – both here in the United States and throughout the free world – is of such immediate concern.
On January 16, 2014, TheHill.com reported:
"Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.
"The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (P-NY) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to 'advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.'
"The Hate Crime Reporting Act, HR3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.
"Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades...
"'This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.'"
The other co-sponsors of this bill include: Reps. Gregory Meeks, (D-NY); Ann Kuster, (D-NH); Michael Honda, (P-CA); Judy Chu, (P-CA); Bobby Rush, (P-IL); Carolyn Maloney, (P-NY); Pedro Pierluisi, (D-PR-At Large); Tony Cardenas, (D-CA-29); Mark Pocan, (P-WI); Eleanor Holmes-Norton, (P-DC-At Large); and Ron Kind, (D-WI).
Again, the entirety of the issue of "hate speech" is predicated on who is defining "hate." Put another way, one person's "hate" is inevitably another person's "free speech." Cases in point: Nazi, Soviet and Communist Chinese censorship.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Emphasis added)
So, the desires of the sponsors of HR3878 – and, in fact, the whole of the Progressive Movement – are juxtaposed to the guarantees of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution guarantees that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," then no speech – no matter how offensive, societally unacceptable or politically incorrect – can be abridged, sans speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government.
Therefore, assurances made by the sponsors of HR3878, that only "criminal and hateful" speech occurring "outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection," are presented disingenuously at the proposal's genesis because no speech can be considered – short of speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government – "criminal" and/or "hateful" by constitutional measure.
Understanding this as fact, it is not out of line to charge that the sponsors of HR3878 are either, constitutionally illiterate, deceptive in their intentions or both. Only the constitutionally illiterate would fail to understand the First Amendment free speech clause was meant to prevent factions from silencing dissenters of the majority, thus executing one of the pinnacle purposes of the Charters of Freedom: protecting the rights of the minority. Conversely, if the sponsors of this piece of legislation do understand the unconstitutionality of their proposal, they advance the measure for nefarious reasons; reasons antithetical to true freedom and liberty for all.
But this shouldn't surprise anyone who has been paying attention to Progressive Movement from its inception.
In a recent analysis entitled, It's Not a War on Christmas, I make the observation:
"If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual 'food chain'...
"By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their...beliefs as being "un-inclusive," "intolerant of others," and "insensitive"..., Progressives aim to 'shame' the truly tolerant and inclusive... By shaming or making the majority of Americans 'uncomfortable' for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives."
This reality applies to the false-flag concept of "hate speech" laws. It can also be applied to the totalitarian "double-jeopardy" of "hate crime" laws as well. To the latter, a crime is either a crime or it is not a crime. By creating a more severe punishment for a "class," "demographic" or "preferred faction" of people, Progressives seek to artificially elevate the severity of a crime only when that crime is committed against the few, while citing the crime as less severe when committed against all others.
In the end, it is the Progressive Movement's modus operandi to manipulate the citizenries of free nations through emotion and "feel good" sounding pieces of legislation, all sold to us as a bill of goods addressing the "common good." In reality, these false-flag, emotion-based pieces of legislation – these "social justice" initiatives – serve to usurp the freedoms guaranteed to us in the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
They are exercises in soft tyranny meant to create power for – and deliver power to – the elitist oligarchs and the tyrannical.
They serve to pollute the airs of freedom; to smother Lady Liberty; and to, eventually, oppress the masses into subjugation.
Of course, to Progressives, those are words of "hate." http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/11354