Posted on 03/19/2015 3:31:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A human rights activist and writer is dismayed that there are no laws that allow the imprisonment of those who state certain offensive positions, such as Bill Maher and Phil Robertson.
If the United States were a "civilized country" like those in Europe, Tanya Cohen wrote for Thought Catalog, then Robertson, a reality show star on A&E's "Duck Dynasty," "would have been taken before a government Human Rights Tribunal or Human Rights Commission and given a fine or prison sentence for the hateful and bigoted comments that he made about LGBT people."
Among the types of speech that should be punished, Cohen mentioned saying that Islamic terrorists are linked to Islam, saying gay marriage is not really marriage, and saying that men who want to be called women are really men.
Besides Robertson, Cohen named Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
Comedian Bill Maher, a liberal atheist who has said that Muslims are more violent than Christians, was also listed. Maher incited the recent shooting of three Muslims, she charged. If there were laws against hate speech, Maher "would be held legally accountable for the shooting."
"When people like this are allowed to sway public opinion against the common good, it can have disastrous consequences," she wrote.
Comparing the United States again to other, mostly European nations that have more restrictions on speech, she wrote that "only in the U.S. is 'freedom of speech' so restrictive and repressive."
She then complained that there is no law in the United States that allows the banning of movies, book, video games, groups or political parties.
Nations that have a "more sensible approach to freedom of expression," Cohen argued, would allow "legitimate freedom of expression," but would ban a host of other voices, including "anti-vaxxers," "climate change deniers," "pick-up artists," and "harmful media." The song "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams should also be banned for encouraging rape.
The U.S. is "completely backwards" and "positively uncivilized" in its free speech protections, Cohen believes. Even "third world" countries like Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are better at freedom of speech by banning certain types of speech, she added.
Americans are the only people on the planet who believe that freedom of speech protects offensive speech, Cohen insisted.
"There is absolutely nobody outside of the U.S. who thinks that there shouldn't be ANY laws against hate speech, racial vilification, or incitement to hatred. That idea is just unthinkable in a society where basic human rights exist. The U.S. has a dismal record on human rights, as indicated by the fact that it still doesn't have universal healthcare, still carries out executions, still hasn't banned firearms, and still tortures people, to name just a few things. But having NO laws against incitement to hatred? It's just impossible for people in civilized countries in the year 2015 to even conceive of such a thing," she wrote. (Emphasis in original.)
People outside the U.S. are "left in stunned disbelief and disgust," she continued, when they find out that it is considered "the land of the free" and a democracy, yet does not have a law banning hate speech. This claim, she added, is "not even an exaggeration," because, "hate speech laws have absolutely universal support from every single facet of society," outside of the U.S.
Freedom of speech, Cohen explained, should give people the right to criticize the government "in a civil, polite, and respectful manner," but should not give the "right to offend, to insult, to disrespect, to oppose human rights, to argue against the common good, to voice approval of totalitarian ideologies, to perpetuate toxic systems of privilege and oppression, to promote ideas which have no place in a modern democratic society, to be provocative or incendiary, or to express opinions which are unacceptable to the majority of people."
As a remedy, Cohen suggested passing laws banning hate speech and letting the United Nations prosecute American citizens who violate international hate speech laws.
On her Twitter account, Cohen describes herself as a "human rights activist and writer."
Thought Catalog describes its mission this way: "We want to support freedom of speech, empower writers and readers on their own terms, and make Thought Catalog an online magazine that represents the worldviews and rhetorical styles of as many people as possible."
The Christian Post contacted Thought Catalog and asked if Cohen's article was intended to be satirical but received no response by press time.
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a heterosexual?”
Tanya Cohen is engaged in hate speech. She should be summarily executed.
Only because they PONTICATE and the PRESSTITUTES eat it up.
“or to express opinions which are unacceptable to the majority of people”
That’s the end road for these fascists... you got that people? Not just “hate speech”, but anything that a majority vote disagrees with, they don’t even want you to be able to speak about, or they will lock you up.
This is truly one of the dumbest people I have ever read.
I’m disgusted that this creature has American citizenship
Excuse me, but where does this CRAZY B*TCH COME FROM? Another planet or the former Soviet Union?
They don’t have enough prisons to house all the Americans that would break such laws in support of the first amendment.
If this fascist gets to be labeled a "human rights activist," then I guess Goebbels and Himmler should be too.
Re-read the article. She already included those.
The blouse alone should get her imprisoned for crimes against humanity ...
Wendy Cohen should be in jail for her dangerous views on free speech. No, wait a minute, I’m thinking like Wendy Cohen. She should be CRITICIZED for her views on free speech.
I hate what he said, I want him imprisoned. His demanding the curtailment of free speech is offensive to me, and he should be arrested and imprisoned for his advocating stripping the natural rights of others who happen to disagree with him.
This type of restrictive avocation shouldn’t be permitted, and anyone who engages in it should be locked up so they fully understand what happens when you take the rights away from others by seeing first hand what happens when their own freedoms are curtailed.
There are many reasons why our ancestors left Europe. Twits like this broad are just one example.
I wonder what Wendy would do with people who say conservative women aren’t real women, that conservative blacks aren’t really black, who call Tea Party members “tea baggers”, who say that Bush planned 9/11, who call people racists just for opposing Obama’s policies, who use vulgar sexual terms for Sarah Palin, who compare conservatives to Nazis, who call conservatives Neanderthals, and who compare Christians to the Taliban? In other words, what would she do with progressives?
Human rights used to include truthful honest dialogs,
Christians know mohammad is a perv liar and thief, we cannot say that anymore? Too bad if it offends anyone, we have their blood on our hands not to tell them..so where do folks rights fall off the cliff? perhaps free speech, should mean free speech..
Censorship champions invariably believe that they will always get to be the censors.
That's the funny thing about free speech. It's often times subjective. I find nothing Phil Robertson says to be offensive yet what you've said, I do. Would you like to appear before a tribunal comprised of persons who agree with Phil Robertson? I'm betting you'd dismiss that idea.
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.