Calling Something Hate: The New Form Of Silencing
The British Home Secretary herself, Amber Rudd, was accused of engaging in a "hate incident," reports the BBC:
West Midlands Police has said the home secretary's speech to last year's Conservative Party conference is being treated as a "hate incident."In the speech, Amber Rudd suggested tightening rules that allow UK firms to recruit workers from overseas.
An Oxford University professor complained to the force claiming Ms Rudd was using "hate speech" to foster support for her political aims.
But West Midlands police said no crime had been committed.
A Home Office spokesperson said: "This was not a hate crime. The Home Secretary has been crystal clear that hatred has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone.
"She's made countering hate one of her key priorities, indeed one of the first public interventions she made was to launch the Hate Crime Action Plan."Danny Shaw, BBC home affairs correspondent, said West Midlands Police had assessed the complaint but it had not been formally investigated.
However, it had to be recorded as a "non-crime hate incident" in accordance with police national guidelines.
See how easy it is to tar someone as an unacceptable person?
They say something you don't like.
Or maybe they're in your way for some reason -- perhaps keeping you from having an entirely clear path to the top.
"J'accuse!" time!
I think this is becoming -- and will continue to become -- an extremely convenient way to go after people who've done nothing wrong...well, that is, in a society that values civil liberties, including free speech, enough to protect them.
via @AdamKissel
Where is everybody today?!
Amy Alkon at January 15, 2017 1:55 PM
In England, you can get a sort of restraining order on someone who you find "alarming" on the vaguest of complaints. This can become a criminal matter if more complaints are filed. But there is no actual crime--they just annoyed you or were "alarming" to you. This is what the Left wants to do here: ruin someone for something they said even if it is an innocent remark or action. A fraternity was labeled as engaged in hate speech for putting up a "wall" in support of Trump during the campaign. The "chalkening" at Emory labeled chalk on sidewalks with Trump's name as hate speech. See how easy it is?
A prof at some school got in big trouble for using the word "niggardly" --even after pointing out it means something entirely different from the N word. An Irish or Scotts individual was excited about discovering his relatives, and talked about his clan insignia etc--this was taken as "Klan" and no amount of clarification was adequate once the snowflakes had melted (co-workers, not students).
cc at January 15, 2017 2:21 PM
"Hate speech" = thought crime.
The left, to survive, must eliminate "wrongz thinkz".
Jay R at January 15, 2017 3:05 PM
"Where is everybody today?!"
All day church marathon?
Ben at January 15, 2017 3:15 PM
Sorry, Amy. I went to church, then the gym. I intend to be very cranky tomorrow, since I fast every other day and tomorrow is a fast day.
Okay, my first thought on reading this is that it's England, and thankfully, the U.S. protects freedom of speech better than any nation on earth. Not "as good as any nation on earth," but "better than any nation on earth.
England, for instance, has blasphemy laws on the books, but only protecting Christianity. You can say all the nasty things about Judaism you want in England. Just no naughty words about Christianity. (Watch the Muslim immigrant population start to lobby to get those laws extended to Islam. Slippery slope.)
However, in the United States, blasphemy laws don't survive. In 1952, in the decision of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of New York could not enforce its laws that allowed the state to prohibit the showing of films deemed "sacrilegious."
This was a landmark decision, because it reversed the Court's previous 1915 decision Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio when it said that films were not a form of speech worthy of protection under the First Amendment.
"Hate speech" is not a concept that exists in the United States, because it's protected speech. "Hate speech" is something for the dweebs at Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to arbitrarily impose on its subscribers, to be enforced as selectively as they goddamn well please.
The problem I see with the concept of "hate speech" in the United States is not that it doesn't exist in U.S. law, but so many people seem to think it does. Or at least think it should be.
This is a video I watched recently on YouTube that pissed me off.
An anti-gay preacher was on a college campus, and a student, apparently mentally disturbed and off his meds, went off him, even committing assault, so that one of the preacher's congregants was compelled to protect his preacher. The preacher didn't press charges, and I wish he did.
But I noted the justification the hysterical student used.
He shrieked (yes, shrieked) that his attack was "provoked assault."
System error. Concept does not exist.
He further accused the preacher of "hate speech."
System error. Concept does not exist.
I have been emailing my congressmen to get free speech back on college campuses and that colleges should be advised that any attempt to suppress free speech will result in a loss of federal funding.
Patrick at January 15, 2017 4:50 PM
"In England, you can get a sort of restraining order on someone who you find "alarming" on the vaguest of complaints."
This is terrible.
It's what the SJW crowd is pushing for.
Patrick, great stuff just above. Especially this:
"The problem I see with the concept of "hate speech" in the United States is not that it doesn't exist in U.S. law, but so many people seem to think it does. Or at least think it should be."
We are living in dangerous -- and kind of sickening -- times.
Amy Alkon at January 15, 2017 5:43 PM
Don't wanna venture off point, but Patrick you've really gotta give some more details into the every other day fast. Is it connected with your church for a new year thing or is it a new lifestyle/eating approach? I'm just being nosy. Cause I don't think I could do it - maybe a Daniel fast or a bland diet. I went until 11:00 two days ago before eating and I had the shakes.
gooseegg at January 15, 2017 7:44 PM
My fasting is for health reasons. Also, I find that it helps to eliminate cravings for sugary stuff. I stopped eating foods made with an abundance of sugar on New Year's Day, and I'm okay without them.
Although occasionally, I enjoy apple slices with peanut butter.
The fast never lasts longer than 24 hours, and it's timed that I never go to bed hungry. That would be brutal.
Say I have my last bite of dinner at 6PM. That is when the fast begins. I can eat again at 6PM the next day. Fasting for longer periods than that becomes dangerous and I watch my strength levels at the gym to make sure I'm not cannibalizing my lean mass.
In starvation and stress conditions, your body has a nasty habit of producing a hormone called cortisol, which breaks down any protein it encounters to use for fuel. This can include blood proteins, muscle, even organ tissue. So, best to keep them brief.
Patrick at January 15, 2017 10:28 PM
"...when it said that films were not a form of speech worthy of protection under the First Amendment."
An aside, but it always amazes me that people will seriously make the argument that the words "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment literally refer only to printed material. "If the Founders meant for the Internet to be protected by the First Amendment, they would have included it!" Seriously. The Founders were smart guys. Wouldn't they have included mention of other media if any such had existed at the time? Wouldn't they have intended for "the press" to include such media? Under this excessively literalist theory, material printed by a laser printer or photocopier isn't protected by the First Amendment because it wasn't produced by a "press" employing formed type.
And yet this argument prevails, way more often than it should. Courts permitted the FCC to (sharply) regulate the content of radio and television broadcasts for decades, under a utilitarian theory that rested on radio signals not being "the press". Do you know that no court ever overturned the Fairness Doctrine? In fact, the SCOTUS upheld it in 1969, and that precedent still stands. The FCC commissioners voted to abolish the Doctrine in 1987, but this was purely an administrative decision, and not the result of a court ruling. In theory, the FCC can re-impose it at any time.
Cousin Dave at January 17, 2017 7:30 AM
I only use that argument with assholes who claim the second amendment only applies to single shot ball muskets
lujlp at January 17, 2017 8:59 AM
I think that very soon (if it hasn't happened already), "hate" will go the way of "racist"--so overused that most people tune it out and it loses its impact. (As Dennis Miller put it in one of his rants: "'Racist' is the new 'doody-head'".)
Rex Little at January 17, 2017 7:52 PM
Leave a comment