“Hate speech” is not FREE speech it is just hate

Lauren Southern right wing racist
Lauren Southern is a Canadian right winger whose claim to fame is trying to prevent Italian rescue ships from picking up Syrian migrants adrift in waters near Sicily

 

Recently a highly educated but common sense and morally deprived child of the privileged wrote about the hate filled, racist, White Nationalist that she invited to the University of Minnesota campus that, “I’m not saying her opinion is the correct opinion… I’m saying that if we want to find out what is the most accurate and the best solution, you have to explore all options.”
You don’t need a college education, only a little common sense to know that some ideas some opinions, some solutions, some options are neither opinions, solutions or options, but are not fit to be repeated and are not fit for a society of humans. And so-called hate speech which usually incorporates White Supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, Islamaphobia and xenophobia fits this category.
Consequently, the invited hateful speaker Lauren Southern, had no opinions, no solutions and no options that a decent human being need consider. Her claim to fame is that she was detained last spring by the Italian coast guard after attempting to stop a boat from rescuing Syrian refugees stranded in the Libyan sea. Apparently the esteemed speaker thought it better the refugees drown.
There is no such thing as hate speech it’s almost an oxymoron!
Ironically far right leaning conservatives claim this as well, pretending that hateful speech is simply a part of the good ole American lexicon.
However implied in speech is a certain civility, which is why if someone gets “out of pocket” folks ask, “Say What?” “You talking to me,” “Come again.”
Hate speech is intended to demean, frighten, silence (etc.) groups, it is “speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground.”
Accordingly “hate speech” does not qualify as speech at all, it is little more than “Neanderthalic” utterings, linguistic vomit, poisonous noise that is secreted from the mouth, but it is not speech. It is evil. It’s only resemblance to speech is the fact that it involves sound!
Therefore it has no place in the community of human beings. And to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous, dishonest and outright mistaken.
After all what is the logical conclusion of hatred, bias and bigotry?  It results in the division of the working class, the class that desperately needs to find its commonality in the face of a ruling class which seeks to work it close to death and then empty its pockets. What other aim could there be in advocating White Nationalism and xenophobia in a multi-racial and multi ethnic society?
So it should have no dedicated place in human interaction. We only have to look back at Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, the European Jewish Holocaust, the Native American Holocaust, South African Apartheid, Jim Crow segregation, to know where this leads.
Germany has laws against hate speech, so does tiny but civilized socialist Cuba.
But even the US Supreme Court in seeking to protect its primary interests (that of the US ruling class) has ruled that free speech is not ABSOLUTE and that there are indeed limits to what one can express.
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used  are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent,” wrote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 case of Schenk vs the United States.
Charles Schenk was a member of the Socialist party and in the midst of World War I he and comrades mailed flyers insisting that US soldiers ignore draft notices, because it was akin to “involuntary servitude,”  which indeed it was, the war was a conflict between the ruling classes who sought to and successfully used its working classes as cannon fodder in that murderous conflict. The US government charged and convicted Schenk and his comrades under the Espionage Act of 1917 for “obstructing the draft” hindering the war effort and threatening “national security.” They appealed on the grounds that their flyers were protected under the First Amendment rights to free speech.
Schenk lost, but two precedents were established: one can’t just say anything they want, like yell fire in a packed theatre, that would cause harm and the State has a right to prevent speech that presents “a clear and present danger” and would bring about “substantive evils.”
While disagreeing with the government’s decision because it was made to shut down folks opposing its war effort, the idea that some speech if taken to its logical conclusion would indeed bring about “substantive evil.”
But most people know that Freedom of Speech is limited, just try cussing at a cop, or telling your boss what you really think, or advancing too many forward thinking ideas in the workplace.
However, the reason that people pretend that one set of human beings has the right to publicly debase, denounce, disparage and even declare that another group of humans in essence has no right to exist, is because we don’t live in the society we think we do. Hate inducing diatribe would be improper and deemed inappropriate in a civilized society.
No doubt if we lived in a civilized society we wouldn’t be having such a foolish debate.
Despite the insistence of the academicians and pundits, there should be no equivalence of utterances designed to disparage,  with declarations aimed at advancing and improving the human condition and human relations.
All the noise about racists visiting US college campuses and their need for protection, serves the interests of the ruling class, who want to put radical revolutionary speech on the same plain as far right backward diatribe.
This debate sews confusion and is designed to convince us that people who advocate the demise of others, have “special” rights and ought to be protected. “Where do they do that at” the answer of course is the United States.
And the well-meaning of us who oppose this dastardly exercise, should be intelligent in our opposition and not allow the Big Business press and others to paint these anti-humans, as victims while depicting those advocating for a just and humane society (their opponents) as criminals.
justice then peace

One Comment Add yours

  1. codyalanreel says:

    So you support punching someone in the face for words? You support throwing someone in a cage, or having a cop shoot that person, because of words?

    Like

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