Yesterday the LA Times featured an op-ed entitled The Case for Restricting Hate Speech. The author was a Laura Beth Nielsen who reportedly earns her living as a “research professor.” What aspect of molecular dynamics is she researching you may wonder? That would be “law’s capacity for social change.”
Ahh yes, the hard science of social change. For those not employed by NASA, social change is an antonym of the term terraforming. It means to make less like our native Earth. Used in a sentence, one scientist might say to another: We applied the social change suite of protocols to render that area uninhabitable to human life.
Such sanitization is precisely the effect Ms. Nielsen hopes to catalyze with her latest ummm…research. In it she argues that hate speech tangibly harms pox, females, BLTs…and no one else at all. Thus it must be made criminal, despite the faint objections from certain parchment in the National Archives. It’s all a matter of who is irritating whom. In fact…
In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.
I don’t really find posting sucker punches of white boys on World Star to be an overly complex coping strategy. But people have their own way of dealing with frequent verbal harassment. I mean we just call the blacks in my office “bootlip” without giving it much thought. Who could have guessed that’s what turned them all to menthol cigarettes?
But to be perfectly candid, criminalizing your opponent’s positions has nothing whatsoever to do with either scientific research or the coping salve of grape soda. What benign-sounding bolsheviks like Nielsen understand is that hate criminalization is a weapon. And only they are willing to wield it.
That exclusivity of resolve is what makes leftists utterly impervious to the common retort of “You let me define Hate, and I’ll let you ban it.” They have internalized conservative cravenness–and grown haughty off it. Nielsen can’t even conceive of a scenario where the vast fungal blooms of anti-white liberal race hate fall under the blade of her law. The mainstream right simply has no spine for the chore. Thus she, and those like her, are eager to swing a legal doctrine they presume will never touch their own necks.
And who would say their reckoning is false? Are any of Sheldon’s congressional foot valets going to lead a charge against jews’ vividly expressed antipathy for the goyim? Are republican prosecutors going to indict La Raza or one of the 37,000 black supremacist organizations? No, that’s not who we are.
But it is who they are, and thus the reason liberals imagine penitentiaries stocked with flummoxed
conservatives hate criminals.
That’s why if I were President and you readers my Congress, I would invite Laura Beth Nielsen to the White House signing ceremony of America’s new extraordinarily stringent Hate Speech law. And as she was being taken into police custody under its provisions I would pause at the podium to reflect on our great advancements in social change technology…and take a long slow drag from my coping menthol Kool.