IS SOCIAL MEDIA HATE SPEECH?

receive columns by email Vincent Vetromile is a 19-year-old Eagle Scout who likes guns.

His Twitter account shows that he follows the president and the vice president, is a Christian, and likes Fox News.

His profile picture is of a 1776 patriot in tricorn hat in front of a Betsy Ross flag, with an AR15 in his hands.

Who was arrested over the weekend for, according to the police, wanting to travel across the state and kill a bunch of people living at a religious commune called Islamberg.

The alleged terrorist from the suburbs is, on social media, exactly the stereotype progressives have of militant conservatives. He is the monster the Democrats warned you about. But the claims made about him are not a progressive fantasy, they are a conservative reality.

And they are one more chilling cautionary tale about the rage of social media and its potential to spill over violently into the real world.

I write this as a conservative myself. I write this as someone who scrolled uncomfortably through the accounts Vetromile follows on Twitter, hoping not to find my own. I was not there, but many others were who are part and parcel of the conservative cheering section on social media.

As well as still others – Confederate pride groups – who smell of something worse than conservatism.

On his @xXrebel1Xx Twitter account, Vincent Vetromile follows 71 and is followed by 298. That means he wasn’t just drinking out of the bucket, he was pouring in, too. Among his followers were CSA4EVER, Deep State Exposed, CSA Patriot and LifeNRA Patriot.

Among the people he follows are the conservative icon actor James Woods, conservative humorist Cloyd Rivers, Fox News commentator Sheriff David Clarke, and various Confederate, Second Amendment and Trump posters.

He mostly retweeted messages from others – including the White House and Fox News – having to do with illegal immigration, border security, terrorism and the chiding of Democrats and progressive causes.

In short, except for the Confederate fixation, he swam in the mainstream of conservative social media, and the things he followed and retweeted are followed and retweeted by large numbers of conservatives and Republicans all across the country.

Do we dismiss this kid – and his alleged three confederates – as freaks on the edge, motivated by their own evil and dysfunction? Do we pluck them out of the stew in which they simmered and cast them aside, but keep the stew because we like it?

Or do we wonder if the increasingly vicious tone of political social media has crossed the line that separates civility from savagery?

It is easy for me to see the pure hatred that oozes from every particle of progressive social media. It is a battlefront where the only rule of engagement is the destruction and humiliation of anyone whose differing opinion renders them an enemy. It is a cesspool where violence is hinted at and fantasized about.

But I cannot deny seeing it in conservative social media as well. Perhaps not to the same degree, but perhaps that view arises from my own partisanship.

There is a bloodlust which dominates the social media postings of progressives and conservatives alike. Not all, but most, in varying degrees. It is not love of country, it is hatred of opponent. There is less fighting for something, and more fighting against something else.

It is the language not of fellow citizens in a Republic, it is the invective of instigators in a civil war.

Some of it is done for money, as invisible patrons fund organizations, or clicks draw advertisers. People define themselves professionally as online assassins. Many do it out of the thrill of passion – even dark passion such as this – and the shallow and weak pose as big and tough behind the anonymity of faceless postings.

It is a knife that cuts both ways, that allows for the exchange of ideas and the advocacy of beliefs, but which also fosters verbal assault and relishes personal destruction.

And somewhere, on the edges, there are Vincent Vetromiles who will believe it is real. And who will take the hyperventilated rage of hateful postings and translate them into tragedies on American streets.

The wise will stop and think, and make sure that the current approach to social media is intelligent and righteous. Viewpoints should be strong, beliefs should be passionate, the tongue should be free. But the hatred should be restrained – by conscience, and by social convention.

Right now social media is a Molotov cocktail that threatens to burn down the real world.

When we conservatives who love the Constitution, and who are especially fond of the Bill of Rights, opposed the imposition of harsher sentences advance by leftists for crimes if they were connected with so-called "hate speech," our instincts were perfectly in tune.

The "hate" element was justified because it allegedly made the crime more heinous and it affected only the punishment not the element of the crime. But we are now watching the metamorphosis of hate crime into hate speech. In other words what the left now regards as "hateful" will soon become a crime rather than a constitutionally protected utterance and the crime will exist without an ancillary act. The speech alone will be enough to convict.

This is the inevitable consequence of trifling with the First Amendment. We are on the march toward tyranny.

Weaponizing free speech against the speaker is a-n-o-t-h-e-r heinous legacy of the Obama police state.

The American Obama despises——tarred as extremists by his admin, why alarm bells should go off whenever Obama,
the obedient media, and lefty Democrats speak of the need to crack down on “extremism”.

Obama Declares War On ‘Extremism’ – Are You An ‘Extremist’
FR Posted 1/13/15 by seekandfind

A list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” or “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. This list will really give you a good idea of what Barack Obama means when he uses the word “extremist”. Each of these 72 items is linked (at web site). As you can see, this list potentially includes most of the country…

OBAMA’S LIST OF EXTREMISTS AS FOUND IN OBAMA-ERA OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS: Those that talk about “individual liberties,” that advocate for states’ rights, that want “to make the world a better place,” that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations.” Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable.” Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions.” Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

“Anti-Gay,” “Anti-Immigrant,” “Anti-Muslim,”“The Patriot Movement,” “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

Members of the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, the Christian Action Network, citizens networks.

Those “opposed to the New World Order,” engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”, those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

Anyone opposed to Agenda 21, anyone concerned about FEMA camps, that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations,” the militia movement, sovereign citizen movement, that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

Anyone that “complains about bias,” that “believes in government conspiracies, that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies,” that “visits extremist websites/blogs,” that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views,” that “attends rallies for extremist causes,” that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance,” that is personally connected with a grievance,” that “suddenly acquires weapons,” that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

“Militia or unorganized militia,” “General right-wing extremist,” Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N., those that refer to an “Army of God,” that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation),” that are “anti-global,” that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” that “revere individual liberty,” that “believe in conspiracy theories”

Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack,” that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism,” that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)” that would “insert religion into the political sphere,” that would “seek to politicize religion,” that have “supported political movements for autonomy.”
Anyone that is “anti-abortion.”

Anyone that is “Rightwing” including “Returning veterans,” those concerned about “illegal immigration,” those that “believe in the right to bear arms,” anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

This is the legacy of America-hating Obama.
CIRCA 2013 Obama targets returning vets as terrorists (planned searches of military homes)

Educational materials from the Department of Defense (DOD) depict conservative organizations as “hate groups” and to be aware that “many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

The documents repeatedly cite the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a resource for identifying “hate groups.”

Judicial Watch obtained the DOD documents in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) filed on April 8, 2013. The FOIA requested “Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes distributed or used by the Air Force.”

Included in the 133 pages of lesson plans and PowerPoint slides provided by the Air Force is a January 2013 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute “student guide” entitled “Extremism.” The document says that it is “for training purposes only” and “do not use on the job.” Highlights include:

•The document defines extremists as “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”

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.