The First Amendment Should Never Protect Hatred

Would she still be so supportive of massive censorship after imagining a government with enough power to regulate the content of every individual's speech in accordance with the then current president's standards for acceptability.

a politician in Sweden was prosecuted for hate crimes for posting statistics about immigrant crime on Facebook

She is thrilled that a politician was prosecuted for posting the truth.

a woman in Austria was convicted of a hate crime for suggesting that the Islamic Prophet Muhammed was a pedophile

Again, it is Islamic sources that tell us Mohammed married Aisha when she was age six or seven when he married her and age nine when they consummated their marriage. This woman shows an almost orgasmic enthusiasm for prosecuting truthful statements that offend someone somewhere.

these laws protect freedom of speech by ensuring that it is used responsibly and for the purposes of good

I imagine she would feel the same about President Palin, President Cruz, or some other conservative deciding whether speech is being used responsibly and for the purposes of good as I do about former US Senator Obama or former Secretary of State Clinton making that decision. The difference is that I actually value freedom and have no more interest in putting a conservative in charge of censorship than I have in putting an enemy of America in charge.

(other countries) allow legitimate freedom of expression while banning bigots, hatemongers, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, pro-pedophile groups, terrorist sympathizers, harmful media, Holocaust deniers, pick-up artists, climate change deniers, and other forms of expression which damage society and social cohesion

Wow! She would ban questioning scientific conclusions if her Leader claims that "the science is settled". That would have stopped Einstein from revising the settled scientific law that F=ma to account for relativity. She would ban "pick up artists"? I wonder where a lonely guy finds a list of accepted and banned pick up lines in countries with her more enlightened free speech rules and positive censorship for social cohesion.

we still have yet to ban firearms

I'm wondering how that popped into a tirade on free speech being more free with added censorship. I'm not surprised though. She would need to disarm real Americans to compel us to comply with her restrictive totalitarian vision.

Protecting vulnerable minorities from hate speech is one of the cornerstones of any democratic society

I feel sorry for those "vulnerable minorities" who are so protected from hate speech that hearing a view that fails to embrace every aspect of their life choices traumatizes them. It sounds like a sad, lonely, frightening way to live, and I am disappointed in the cruelty of those who would intentionally teach others to be sissies. It's her right to speak in favor of such a vicious policy, but I find it sad that she doesn't know better.

Australia’s human rights courts have ruled many times that it doesn’t matter whether the comments are “true” or “balanced” or not; if the comments may offend minorities or incite hatred, then they are against the law in Australia, as they should be. Australia has also proposed legislation (the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill) which declares people automatically guilty of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating minorities unless they can prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt

OMG!

The Supreme Court of Canada has also found that truthful statements can be classified as illegal hate speech, and that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction

Rather than openly discussing the truth so that people can change unpleasant truths, she wants to ban truthful speech that makes people uncomfortable? I think we often underestimate the level of evil among today's liberals. At least she has the honesty to openly disclose just how powerful and oppressive a state she wants.

Hate speech does have very serious consequences in the real world, but straight, white, Christian men could never be able to understand just how severe those consequences can be

If the censorship she so breathlessly advocates were not so one-sided and racist, this statement would lead to her prosecution under the laws she yearns for. She just openly insulted straights, whites, Christians, and men. Even if true, she's still guilty by her standards, except that in the liberal world view those four groups do not have the right to not be offended that she so enthusiastically demands on behalf of everyone else.

America also needs to hand over control of the Internet to the United Nations, which will use the international human rights framework to protect human rights online

One World Government with the UN holding all the power will make it easier for her to accomplish her goals. But then it will make it easier for the next Hitler, Stalin, or Obama to accomplish his goals. I do not see that as a good idea.

numerous countries are passing human rights laws requiring anyone accused of hate speech to prove their innocence or be declared automatically guilty

Again, wow!

If anyone in Australia ever proposed that all laws against hate speech/vilification should be completely abolished, they would lose their job, they would lose all of their friends, and they would have to hire bodyguards. That’s not even an exaggeration

People on her side are comfortable advocating individual violence to supplement government violence if their position is even questioned. I'm not surprised.

I can't tell whether this is a brilliant parody of the typical Obama supporter, or a genuine Obama voter spewing her real thoughts.

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.