The Joe Blow Report 2

Everything Is About Something Different

Hate Speech – Is There A Law?

leave a comment »

hate speech not freeWhat is “hate speech”? Is it protected by the First Amendment?

The Joe Blow Report asserts that Dave Stancliff, Columnist for the Times-Standard newspaper, engaged in hate speech in his two blog articles listed here and here. More importantly, the language he uses depicts and defines the Report’s writer(s) as some sort of insane, “Lone Wolf” right-wing, hate-group of domestic terrorist — a form of racism.

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport’s scale which measures prejudice in a society. Critics have claimed that the term “Hate Speech” is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct. [Partial definition from Wikipedia: Hate Speech — Read complete here.]

Then there is the Urban Dictionary’s definition for “racism”:

If you’re a white man, this is what you are. It doesn’t even matter if your wife is black and you have an adopted child from India, or how many black friends you have, somehow you’re going to end up being a racist according to how the media portrays the white man as “racist whities”.

The website “Knowledgerush” says this about “racist hate speech”:

Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical or mental heath.
It may also in some contexts challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria. In many countries, deliberate use of ‘hate speech’ is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. (Emphasis added)

The term “racist” is used to identify Stancliff’s commentary because he is determined to identify and define — stereotype this writer according to his own opinionated prejudices.

Notice what Stancliff says about me:

They checked in again Monday when I posted a reply to their insanity.
Whoever they are, they’re not oo bright!
June 17, 2009 7:33 AM

If you call someone a terrorist just because they don’t agree with you, are you then free to treat them like a terrorist?

False accusers are liars. Liars are murderers. Everyone that supports a liar is also a liar and a murderer.

–Joe

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: