THE RELIGION OF PEACE
(or something)
I wrote this the other day on another subject, but it seems relevant here. The Left's obsession with 'hate speech' is dangerous and just another way of saying to 'the deplorables' 'Just STFU, already!'
Bear in mind that I am discussing American law, but, if the Left and its friend-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend have their way, our First Amendment protections will disappear and, if a PEW report from last year is any indication (40% of Millenials believe that one's feelings and 'right' not to be offended trumps free speech), we are heading in a perilous direction much faster than anyone realises:
...
Freedom of the press shouldn't mean freedom of the press to act irresponsibly.
I'm not calling for any governmental action or constraint here. Just common sense and responsibility on the part of the media. If a Florida preacher threatens to exercise his First Amendment rights to burn a Koran, the MSM demands a prior restraint be issued lest some Muslims get all offended and stuff and start killing people (i.e., they want to award a Heckler's Veto). But, if the MEDIA engages in incendiary 'reporting' that's just journalism.
FTR: The MSM, the Left, and too many others are often either ignorant or purposefully misleading when it comes to the Heckler's Veto, incitement, and the fighting words doctrine.
The Heckler's Veto is where one person's speech is prohibited because another disagrees. This is prohibited under almost all readings of the First Amendment although Progressives believe it should be allowed. To them, it is putting Herbert Marcuse's 'Repressive Tolerance'* (as he would say: 'intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left') into action.
Another example would be Denmark's recent decision to prosecute a man for burning a Koran under the country's ancient blasphemy laws. The state, which isn't exactly religious, is not trying to punish a citizen for criticising religion or God, in general. It is attempting to do three things:
1. Punish this man for criticising ONE SPECIFIC RELIGION, namely Islam, and burning its 'Holy' book.
2. 'Pour encourager les autres': In Candide, Voltaire introduces this phrase as an indirect reference to Admiral John Byng, who was executed at the outbreak of the Seven Years' War. The full quote is 'dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres' ['In this country (England), it is good to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage others.']
Today, the phrase has become famous for its connection with politics. If we punish one, the others will fight/work/obey harder. If we punish one, the others will think twice about dissenting/disobeying/rising up. In Old England or l'ancien régime de France, it was common to send and display parts of the executed corpses of traitors around the country as a warning and pour encourager les autres.
3. Both #1 and #2 are really pretexts for #3. If the book that had been burned had been a Bible, there would be no prosecution because there would be no fear of insane Christians rioting, looting, marauding, destroying, raping, and murdering anyone much less whole cities. It is the fact that Muslims WILL do all of these things if their precious prophet is maligned (and Denmark has had an up close and personal experience with this truth in the years following the publication of the ProMo 'toons) that has caused the government to prosecute this man.
Here's the thing though: The man's identity has, thus far, been unknown. In fact, the entire videotaped incident was known to but a few people. LIKE OBAMA AND HILLARY WITH THE 'INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS' VIDEO, WHICH HAD ONLY BEEN SEEN BY AROUND 325 PEOPLE WORLDWIDE UNTIL THEY CHOSE TO GIVE IT A BETTER-THAN-OSCAR PR CAMPAIGN, THE DANISH GOVERNMENT MADE THE EXISTENCE OF THE KORAN BURNING PUBLIC. If the man is convicted, his identity will become public...AND THE DANISH GOVERNMENT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS 24/7/365 PROTECTION.
Incitement/Incitement to imminent lawless action (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)) does NOT even begin to imply that burning a Koran whether intentionally desiring irate Muslims to engage in unlawful activities is in any way 'incitement'. In fact, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE OPPOSING SIDE OR 'OFFENDED PARTY'.
The Left and tut-tuts on the Right first said that Pam Geller's cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, should be cancelled lest 'Muslims be provoked' (funny how no one worried about Catholics going on murderous rampages when Sinead O'Connor tore up Pope John Paul II's photo on Saturday Night Live or Mormons blowing up theaters where The Book of Mormon was being performed) and then, after two Islamists tried to kill Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, Leftists and nattering nabobs blamed Geller & Co and wrote articles about the necessity of free speech limitations that would protect poor 'offended' Muslims.
To use examples with some historical references...
An example of incitement/incitement to imminent lawless action:
Dem'Robert Byrd, the Grand Kleagle of the West Virginia Ku Klux Klan, holds a cross burning. At the close of the 'ceremony', he says: 'Let's go kill us some n*ggers!' An hour after that speech, Dem'Orville Faubus and Dem'William Fullbright, who were present at the event, set fire to a house in 'Blackville' killing a father, mother, and six children ranging in age from 6 months to 16 years.
Byrd is guilty of incitement to imminent lawless action.
NOT an example of incitement/incitement to imminent lawless action:
His Holy Motherwheel Pilot, Calypso Louis Farrakhan, the Right Honourable Minister of the Nation of Fezzes and Bowties, holds a mass rally at the Olympia Stadium in Detroit on 15 December 2008. During his speech, Farrakhan tells his fellow NFB cultists that Mohammed and his Twelve Disciples, whom he met on 'The Motherwheel' on 17 September 1985 over Tepoztlan, Mexico, demanded that he write down Allah's commandments on an Apple iStone Tablet. Then, go forth, spread the message, and seek that his will be done. So, on that day in 2008, Farrahkhan told the congregation Allah's commandments:
1. Love only Muslims.
2. Kill all Jews.
3. Kill all Christians.
4. Kill all 'not the right sort of' Muslims.
5. Kill all Buddhists.
6. Kill all Hindus.
7. Kill all Druids.
8. Kill all Sikhs.
9. Kill all Yazidis.
10. Kill all Shintos.
11. Kill all pagans.
12. Kill all Wiccans.
13. Kill all atheists.
14. Kill all Zulus.
15. Kill all homosexuals.
16. Kill all transgenders.
17. Kill all white people and 'white Hispanics'.
18. Kill all 'blue-eyed devils'.
19. Rape all non-Muslims and only marry 9 year-old Muslim girls.
20. Always keep at least one goat as a mistress.
On 2 January 2016, Mohammed Ali Muhammed al-Mehmed and Ali-Ahmad Muhamet stormed the Univision television studios in Miami, Florida, during a live taping of America with Jorge Ramos. They raped all of the non-Muslim women. They killed all of the homosexuals. They killed all of the transgenders. They killed all of the white people. They killed all of the 'white Hispanics'. They killed all of the 'blue-eyed devils'. They killed Jorge Ramos...but not because he was not a Muslim or white or a 'white Hispanic' or even a 'blue-eyed devil'. They killed him just because he was a fucking irritating asshole.
Mohammed Ali Muhammed al-Mehmed and Ali-Ahmad Muhamet were convicted of multiple counts of assault, rape, kidnapping, murder, and terrorism. Reportedly, some on the jury had wanted to acquit him of all charges relating to Jorge Ramos, but even fake 'people of colour' have rights...see Fauxcahontas./
His Holy Motherwheel Pilot, Calypso Louis Farrakhan, the Right Honourable Minister of the Nation of Fezzes and Bowties, WAS NOT, HOWEVER, CONVICTED - NOR EVEN CHARGED - WITH INCITEMENT OR INCITEMENT TO COMMIT IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION.
'Fighting Words' Doctrine is, basically, 'Yo, Momma!' Whilst it was very narrowly upheld in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942):
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
'Hate speech' could clearly fall under Chaplinsky's limitation on speech and the Fighting Words Doctrine.
Whilst Chaplinsky has never been explicitly overturned, the Court has ruled in many cases that it would unlikely uphold it today. Flag burning (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)), prohibitions on 'speech that raise[s] a threat to society', which was upheld Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) was overturned by Brandenburg, Bible burning (see Johnson and Brandenburg), 'Fvck the Draft!' signs, clothing, etc (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)), American flag clothing, etc (Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974)) have all been upheld as expressions of free speech. In 1992, the Court overturned a St Paul ordinance that banned 'arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender' a/k/a the city's 'Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance' (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)). And, infamously - and unfortunately correctly, the Court in an 8-1 decision ruled that the vile Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to protest funerals on public property with signs, such as, 'God Hates Fags' (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)).
The Left and the MSM hates free speech, except the kind of which they approve of course, which is why they love Marcuse and Repressive Tolerance.
* Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance (1965) essay is available here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm
This sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested. The political locus of tolerance has changed: while it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it is made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies. Tolerance is turned from an active into a passive state, from practice to non-practice: laissez-faire the constituted authorities. It is the people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities. ...
Tolerance of free speech is the way of improvement, of progress in liberation, not because there is no objective truth, and improvement must necessarily be a compromise between a variety of opinions, but because there is an objective truth which can be discovered, ascertained only in learning and comprehending that which is and that which can be and ought to be done for the sake of improving the lot of mankind. ...
Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All points of view can be heard: the Communist and the Fascist, the Left and the Right, the white and the Negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. ...
The question, who is qualified to make all these distinctions, definitions, identifications for the society as a whole, has now one logical answer, namely, everyone 'in the maturity of his faculties' as a human being, everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously. ...
Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.
University of California at Berkeley
Left: The birth of the 'Free Speech Movement' (1964);
Right: The 'death of free speech at Berkeley' at the Milo Yiannopoulos speech, 1 February 2017
