Posted on 04/02/2019 6:13:22 PM PDT by Rummyfan
I don’t remember when the phrase “hate speech” came into common use, but for some time now liberals have used it as an implicit attack on the First Amendment. Contrary to all law and logic, they press the view that anything they consider “hate speech” should be suppressed, by the government (a government run by liberals, that is) if necessary.
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour engaged in an extreme form of this fallacy while interviewing James Comey earlier today. She asked Comey whether he wished that the FBI had “shut down” people at 2016 Trump rallies who chanted “lock her up” about Hillary Clinton:
Of course, “Lock Her Up” was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign. Do you in, retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, the people in charge of law and order, had shut down that language, that it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it kind of is hate speech? Should that have been allowed?
Video at the link. The fact that a veteran journalist could ask such an insane question is shocking. (Comey explained that in the United States, it is not the job of the FBI to “shut down” political speech.) The phrase “hate speech” is the magic talisman. But for the last two years, it has been impossible to assemble a group of three or more Democrats who didn’t call Donald Trump a traitor, or worse. Is that hate speech? Should the Democrats’ crazed smears against President Trump be “shut down”? If not, why not?
I think the real answer is that Democrats know that Republicans respect the Constitution and value free speech. Democrats can say whatever they want; there is no risk that Republicans will try to shut them down, no matter how often they claim, absurdly, that Donald Trump is a would-be dictator. But when they gain power, the shoe will be on the other foot.
Democrats have already succeeded in driving “hate speech,” as defined by them to serve partisan ends, from most social media outlets. It is only a matter of time before they make a serious effort to shut down speech in public places that is critical of their leaders, and lock up people who have the temerity to engage in it.
I think maybe it's time "journalists" were used for target practice. I mean my God in Heaven, can they be any dumber?
B*tch needs to go back to Iran and the FBI disbanded.
Wow. That would make the Civil War look like a picnic.
Oh, I just remembered....free speech.
Well, our side still holds it in high regard. It’s getting so damn awkward.
My point. 4th Gen warfare dictates that the IDEA of your enemy be scrubbed from existence.
Communism, and those who espouse it, will have to be obliterated. Those who don't study war have no idea of just how bad it's going to be.
Libs take pride in their ignorance. It will cost them dearly.
The pure fact that a law preventing “hate speech” exists at all, is a crime itself against the Constitution.
The Constitution and the First Amendment don’t qualify speech, it just says that no law will be made to stifle it.
Therefore, free speech, is free speech.
I’d like to see the FBI, or anyone else, enter a Trump rally and try to shut the people up who are chanting, “lock her up”...all Trump would have to do is say, “sic’em boys” and then, “Look ma...where did those FBI guys get off too?”.
No,they should shut down Amanpour instead.
“Hate speech,” AKA political speech, is the exact speech the First Amendment was intended to protect.
Jussie Smollett and two Nigerian brothers who colluded with him committed the biggest hate crime of the year. Smollett lied and falsely told police that two masked men shouted racial and homophobic slurs at him, beat him, wrapped a rope around his neck and poured bleach on him.
Police say he paid two Nigerian brothers $3,500 to stage the attack, which they did willingly and hatefully – and told them to say “MAGA,” for “Make America Great Again,” the slogan popularized by President Donald Trump.
He used the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations that would hurt all white people’s character, and all Trump supporters character.
Laws against “Hate Speech” are the inevitable result of hate crimes legislation. It’s that old camel’s nose under the tent thing.
It drives me up the wall when I read FR posters going on about what is or isn’t an actual hate crime as if that concept had any legitimacy in a free society. We have to stop letting the Progressive Left define the terms of every argument.
The FBI should be shut down.
It is now a threat to the citizens.
Yes, but the Jussie Smollett case points out the hypocrisy of the term “hate crime” which in recent years was used erroneously in many high profile cases where white policemen were doing their jobs and black thugs were trying to harm or kill them...but the white person was labeled as committing a hate crime and the black person hailed to be a victim of hate crime.
“Hate speech,” AKA political speech, is the exact speech the First Amendment was intended to protect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Precisely.
The Ministry of Propaganda has lost their monopoly.
They only like their free speech, not anyone else’s.
BTTT!
Just HOW the Hell does this woman propose the FBI shut up a crowd of, say, 15 thousand people chanting “lock her up”?
Move in with APC’s?
Well said.
Surprising it took a few times for the post to post.RME
12 years or so as a poster and still censored. LMAO
Considering skin color, gender, religion, etc are the major components to determine your place within IDENTITY POLITICS ... which is racist by definition.
the FBI should shutdown the democrat party for being a hate filled racist organization
“Just HOW the Hell does this woman propose the FBI shut up a crowd of, say, 15 thousand people chanting “lock her up”?
Note that the same people who are clamoring to have “Hate Speech” laws enacted are also hell-bent on disarming every single productive citizen.
See my tag-line - that’s how the Left intends to shut us up.
Well, sure, and I do not disagree (except IMO the left will fail in a “disarm the non-left” effort) but crowds at Trump rallys are not armed anyway: It would still take, at the least, the threat of considerable (probably lethal) force...
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.