We have speculated previously that the struggle against hate has yet to open its next obvious front. Though certainly the left’s puppets are being pulled to signal its initiation. Perhaps you will recall this image from nowhere in particular:
This is what comes next. There will be things that may be said for free, and there will be said things that dearly cost thee. Your freedom to speak will stop where The Narrative begins. As any employed readers already understand, this restriction exists in de facto form already. Those who prefer feeding their children are necessarily circumspect about what comments can be publicly attributed to them. We can say whatever we like, just not while employed. It is highly effective in deterring our efforts to organize, finance, and advocate. Though plainly the left finds this sanction still too mild and is now foundation laying for construction in the criminal code. And the public appears already mentally pureed to proceed.
A YouGov poll taken just last fall found that equal amounts of Americans support and oppose “hate speech laws,” defined as laws that would “make it a crime for people to make comments that advocate genocide or hatred against an identifiable group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.” Thirty-six percent said sure and 38 percent said no way. That’s disturbing enough on its own, but here’s something even more unsettling: Fully 51 percent of self-identified Democrats supported hate-speech laws.
Of course they do. Democrats understand what “hate” means. It’s opposition to the ever-metastasizing progressive platform. What a coup to transform your adversaries into criminals by the magic of legislation–or fiat as this administration might be inclined. But so long as constitutional process has been dutifully observed conservatives will voice no gripe. Morbid fidelity to a legal memoir is far more an imperative than the future of our children. Besides, are you going to support hate? Of course the term is irrelevant bozo-bait. “Cunnilingus” could serve just as ably without alteration of meaning. Call it whatever, just don’t call for white advocacy.
And at a mere 36-38 split, its orgasmic consummation is not far in ummm…coming. If you’d like to taste the current state of the art in “hate speech” hysteria–and I know you do not–this article offers quite a moistened moan. It is interminably long and hysterical in both tone and comedic effect–perhaps easily dismissible as the ravings of an unhinged leftist jew. But that would be a mistake. For history is awash with the keen laments of men who ignored the intentions of this cohort.
In documenting it, I originally began a laborious process of quote/comment, though found the essence best presented in its own unfiltered conclusions. Read through the recommendations and enjoy a good laugh. And when you are finished chuckling, pause to consider that some significant portion thereof will be law within 10 years. This is the next phase in the program: outlawing “racism” and narrowing the range of speech to a hair’s width. And as we have learned: what men do not say, they eventually do not think.
It won’t come in the next two years under this congress. But it will come. And when it does, do you imagine the Republican party or National Review will stand athwart history shouting “stop!”? No, I don’t either. So until prohibition arrives, you ladies just lie back and enjoy the ministrations. Here’s the future:
In order to establish ourselves as a country that sincerely respects fundamental human rights, democratic freedoms, and individual liberties, America needs to pass basic human rights legislation – such as a Human Rights Act – that outlaws, among other things:
1.Speech which offends, insults, demeans, threatens, disrespects, discriminates against, and/or incites hatred or violence against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or sexual activity, gender identity or gender expression, disability, language, language ability, ideology or opinion, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and/or any other comparable distinction. In cases where hate speech is aggravated – such as incitement to genocide – prison sentences should be even longer.
2.The spreading of misinformation, including climate change denial, denial of war crimes and genocides (especially Holocaust denial) [especially that], conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine propaganda, and general nonsense [High crimes and general nonsense].
3.Anti-feminist, anti-multicultural, anti-immigration, and/or anti-equality ideology.
4.Insulting, disrespectful, and/or offensive speech in general and speech that violates the dignity of people. This would include, for example, jokes about tragedies along with insults and derogatory/disrespectful comments about any person, group, place, or thing.
5.Speech that disparages the memory of deceased persons. [No more bad mouthing certain mid 20th century Germans]
6.Speech that voices approval of oppressive, anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and/or totalitarian ideologies. This would include, for example, speech that opposes a woman’s right to have an abortion and speech that approves of Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
7.Speech that opposes any human rights. This would mean that anyone saying that hate speech shouldn’t be against the law would be prosecuted, since hate speech is universally recognized as an injustice and a human rights violation. It would also include propaganda for war, which is illegal under international human rights law.
8.Speech that incites, instructs, assists, condones, celebrates, justifies, glorifies, advocates, or threatens violence and/or law-breaking and speech that undermines the rule of law. This would include, for example, the advocacy of gun ownership (which would be classified as incitement to violence in any civilized country). In a civilized society, advocating violence is no different than actually committing the violence yourself. Only in the US is inciting violence and murder – even inciting violence and murder against minorities – considered to be “free speech”.
9.Speech that undermines the authority of the state and/or interferes with the state’s ability to properly function and do its job. This would also include speech that undermines the authority of the United Nations and/or international law.
10.Speech that objectifies women and/or reduces them to their sexual dimension, such as pornography and catcalling.
11.Speech that promotes unacceptable ideas, such as un-democratic ideologies and ideologies that oppose freedom [such as calling for hate speech laws]. This would also apply to promoting people who promote or promoted unacceptable ideas. For example, in the case of The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ruled that glorifying Hitler not only constitutes incitement to Hatred, but also incitement to violence.
12.Speech that harms and/or divides society in general, including speech that damages social cohesion.
13.Symbols associated with hateful and/or un-democratic ideologies, such as Nazi swastikas and Confederate flags.
14.Gestures and salutes associated with hateful and/or un-democratic ideologies, such as fascist salutes.
15.Speech which constitutes microaggressions against vulnerable minorities.
16.Images or recordings of any crimes.
17.Speech which may lead to tensions with other nations and/or upset people in other nations.
18.Speech which is found to be blasphemous towards minority religions.
19.Depictions of indecent violence (especially violence against women) and/or other offensive content.
20.Speech which is found to be irresponsible, unethical, antisocial, hurtful, impolite, uncivil, abusive, distasteful, and/or unacceptable in general.
The SPLC will issue further guidelines shortly.