Poll: 51% of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech

Hotair ^ | 10/03/2014 | AllahPundit

[SeekAndFind]

Note: Hate speech, not hate crimes. YouGov asked people about hate crimes for its poll too and found bipartisan support for the federal law that provides steeper penalties for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s race, religion, gender, or national origin. Sixty-four percent of Dems gave thumbs-up to that versus 54 percent of Republicans. A plurality of Republicans also support expanding that law to target hate crimes committed against gays: 44 percent say yes versus 30 percent who say no.

Hate-crimes laws matter in the sentencing phase. If you’re guilty of the underlying offense, then you can be punished more severely depending upon what your motive was. A hate-speech law is different in that it treats hate as the offense itself. All you have to do is verbalize your thoughtcrime against a protected group and you’re facing prison. Our intellectual superiors in Europe cherish their hate-speech laws but the First Amendment makes them anathema in the U.S.

For now.

Independents and Republicans are heavily opposed (although, alarmingly, not quite to a majority degree among GOPers) but Democrats and liberals — proud guardians of the free-speech movement in the 1960s — are ready to censor. The best spin I can put on this for lefties is that YouGov’s question asked if they’d support a law that criminalizes comments that “advocate genocide or hatred” against a particular group.

[Vendome]

Really?

That sword actually has two blades and tends to be trown around fairly carelessly.

[showme_the_Glory]

eff the 51%

[longfellow]

Nazis.

Not hate speech just stating facts.

[GeronL]

leftist hate speech would be okay though

[Obadiah]

In all seriousness, I see this as more evidence of the construction of the low-information voter.

They no very little. They have a very low capacity to think or reason, therefore they rely almost exclusively on their emotions for guidance.

Ever see these dolts in a video being asked basic, fundamental questions? They look dazed and confused and give the most absurd response to the question. These are low-information voters!

These are the people ruled by the Democrat/emotion Party. These are the people who are reflected in the ever shifting polls who say they are going to vote one way, one day, and then completely change their minds the next day because Kim Kardashian said something to change their minds.

Our nation is in serious peril.

[Obadiah]

no = know

[TexasCajun]

We fought a war to separate ourselves from Great Britain.

[Dutch Boy]

But like all true libs, they think it does not apply to them.

[Darteaus94025]

Well, there goes the Bible then.

[cuban leaf]

“Hate speech” means nothing.

That’s what’s scary about this.

[cuban leaf]

Hey, I’m still tryin’ to figure out who this Ben Gazzi guy is that Fox news hates so much...

[RJS1950]

The democrat party should be outlawed (should have been done in 1865) and it’s criminal members prosecuted. No currently registered democrat should be allowed to vote or hold any office at any level ever again. Confiscate their assets to help pay for the mess they’ve made.

[MeshugeMikey]

they look to the friendly smiling faces on their favorite disinfotainment programs on MSNBC CBS NBC ABC CNN ETC... to tell them what to “think”.

their “friend” in the disinfotainment businnes are a great comfort to them

[DeaconRed]

Debbie Washer Woman Schlitz will be put in jail. . . .

[CharlesOConnell]

If your actions say NO, that's Hate Speech.

[Senator_Blutarski]

“Hate speech” means nothing

Yep, "hate speech" means whatever liberals want it to mean at a particular point in time.

Which translates into "hate speech is whatever conservatives say".

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Democrats and liberals — proud guardians of the free-speech movement in the 1960s — are ready to censor . . . [do they want a law that] criminalizes comments that “advocate genocide or hatred” against a particular group . . . .

Of course the Left's 60's free speech was "for me, not for thee".

As a survivor of the silenced generation I can testify..

It's what liberals do -- even liberals of the old traditional Democratic Party often successfully denied conservatives a right to free speech.

The FCC "Fairness Doctrine" was used by liberals/progressives to restrict the First Amendment without having to repeal it -- they enforced "fairness" by threatening to take the radio station owners' licenses if citizens complained about their programming content

• "You might also think that they would recall the notorious Fairness Doctrine, which was used to 'harass and intimidate' right-wing radio broadcasts, in the words of one unabashed Kennedy-Johnson operative. When that censorious policy was ended in 1987 by former broadcaster Ronald Reagan, there was an explosion of talk formats that gave voice to popular concerns (for a while, Rush Limbaugh even billed himself as equal time)."
• As reported by Fred Friendly in his book appropriately entitled The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, this was part of a "massive strategy . . . to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited, and decide it was too expensive to continue." This strategy was said to have been successful in almost all respects.

[jwalsh07]

Yet another reason to vote Dem. I mean really, how could any conservative contemplate voting for a democrat because they are angry at the GOP. Vote liberatarian, write in or stay home but a vote for a dem is a vote for fascism.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

In England, quoting Winston Churchill on Moslems can get you jailed.