https://x.com/thefireorg/status/1967770321445871656?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So, Pam Bondi is saying that she'll go after "hate speech". Shockingly enough, I've got problems with the very concept.
1. "Hate speech" is a leftist concept designed to justify government censorship, and silencing of those they disagree with.
2. The 1st Amendment protects virtually all speech, regardless of how hateful it might be or seem.
3. There have been some very specific examples of direct threats to various elected officials, and public figures. Those should be investigated and prosecuted if appropriate.
4. If Bondi is referring to the kind of speech in #3, that's fine. Her use of the term "hate speech" is still problematic.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/sep/15/karen-attiah-fired-washington-post-charlie-kirk
I'll use this as an example, but there are plenty of other similar situations. Karen Attiah was fired because she made up a false "quote" and attributed it to Charlie Kirk, when the false "quote was pointed out to her, she doubled down and said that she only "repeated Kirk's words". In short, she was fired because main up "quotes" and falsely attributing them to someone is a journalistic no-no. More so back when I was getting my degree in journalism and mass communication, but it still can be now. She wasn't fired because she was black, nor because she said vile things, she was fired for lying.
Too many people, mostly ASPL, confuse the freedom of speech with the freedom from consequences of that speech. As Natalie Mains found out, exercising free speech can be costly. Or, to put it another way, her free speech was not free. People are not getting censored by the government for their vile, hateful speech. They're getting fired by their employers for violating terms of employment.
https://x.com/immeme0/status/1967460136353464452?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Here's a lawyer explaining the phenomenon very well.
4 comments:
I am totally against the concept of "hate speech." The First Amendment would be abjectly violated. Who would get to determine what hate speech is?
Many times on my blog, and even more so on Facebook, I get charged with hate speech for calling abortion the murder of a child, for saying God calls homosexual behavior an abomination, and by pointing out that a woman can never be a man nor a man be a woman because of biology.
That's a great question. I honestly don't think it has an actual definition. Much like the left wing standards "racist, X/phobe,NAZI/etc it can mean anything the user wants which means nothing. In practice it's probably any speech that makes me feel icky. Going back as far as the '70s SCOTUS has held that offensive speech is protected speech, and I have no problem with that. The "hate speech" label seems to be more about proactively preventing soeech than anything. As far as who gets to decide, it's obviously the one most offended. Prefacing any act with "hate" is choosing to try to criminalize or demonize thought.
I completely understand that the people online calling for the death of JD Vance, Erika Kirk, and Candace Owens should absolutely be investigated for inciting violence. But the rest, I wouldn't waste time on. (Which may be what Bondi is saying, poorly IMO)
That people are facing repercussions from their employers is a whole different deal. If I ran a business, I'd fire these people immediately to avoid backlash against my business.
As the old saying goes, "Truth hurts". When Truth gores someone's sacred cow, watch out.
Oh, most assuredly..."hate speech" is about canceling speech. Dan employs this tactic constantly, deciding when the going gets tough in discourse to begin attacking word choices of his opponents, as he's done to each of us many, many times. Now, being denied the use of a growing list of words one can't use because Dan says it's offensive to someone and allegedly the type of language common to "oppressors" (and never common to anyone else), the visitor must now exert greater effort to express himself clearly by considering which words from the pool of choices can be used without offending whomever Dan needs to say will always be offended upon hearing or reading said words.
"Hate speech" is a tool used by the left to silence opponents and to avoid addressing the truth.
There is really no question that the "hate speech" label is intended to prevent speech which offends those who believe that they control what is appropriate. Of course it's only deployed in one direction.
The whole oppressor/oppressed framework is fatally flawed as long as people believe that Muslims are the oppressed, not the oppressor and that Christians are the primary drivers of oppression throughout history. It's a shortsighted and foolish basis for a worldview, because human history shows that, when given the chance, the oppressed with happily oppress anyone they can.
Post a Comment