Free Speech Not Hate Speech?
Here's how you get people to give up their rights as citizens. Free Speech being a good example.
First, you say "We have no intention of inhibiting anyone's freedom of speech. It's only hate inducing speech that we're talking about." This is the point at which the speaker offers an anecdote about how some poor kid was bullied by bigots who mercilessly called him or her hate filled names, causing the poor child to commit suicide. But, not before he or she wrote an emotionally devastating note about what it was like to be the target of hateful speech.
This is intended to shift the argument from the legal realm, which is where it should be, into the emotional, thereby eliminating rational debate. In other words, as tragic an event as this is, it isn't the basis for changing the constitution. Nor is it reasonable to assume that our legal system can account for every misdeed committed in society. Make no mistake, though, for some folks, every tragedy is an opportunity to consolidate power. The more emotionally compelling the tragedy, the better.
"Now, you don't support bullying and bigotry, do you?" ask the many ambitious politicians and the ratings hungry media. "Because, if you oppose this congressional bill, which, henceforth shall be known as "The Anti-Bullying and Bigotry Bill" you will be responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of innocent children,"
"I mean, why not support it?" They ask. "It's only going to stop bullies, racists, and homophobes.
It'll have no impact at all on non-hateful speech, we assure you."
Hollywood immediately responds to the hue and cry by making a film or two about the terrible event. After all, they know a good story when they hear one. Celebrities line up by the hundreds in opposition to bullies and bigots. Political action committees buy airtime. And, before you know it, a fair portion of the country is on the bandwagon, celebrating the end of bullying and bigotry, because passing a bill will, no doubt, do the trick.
Sure enough, with images of suffering children in their heads Americans pass the bill, and the people applaud, as they vigorously celebrate their righteous good works. Eager, as always, to demonstrate their high but selective moral character.
"What could be wrong with that? I mean, who wants to be a bully or a bigot? Not me, that's for sure." They proclaim.
So, they begin the process of smudging out those few words, written long ago, by men lacking in the necessary understanding of this brave new world of the internet and other related stuff.
"Let's get real, they didn't even have telephones!" The people say.
"Yes, today, love has triumphed!" They shout aloud. "Because that's just the way love rolls!"
And, for the moment everyone is happy. But, eventually, they say less and less, for fear of offending, or being offended. They're patient, however, so they wait and they wait, for love to finally win. Which, hopefully, should be any day now, any day!
Mark Magula
First, you say "We have no intention of inhibiting anyone's freedom of speech. It's only hate inducing speech that we're talking about." This is the point at which the speaker offers an anecdote about how some poor kid was bullied by bigots who mercilessly called him or her hate filled names, causing the poor child to commit suicide. But, not before he or she wrote an emotionally devastating note about what it was like to be the target of hateful speech.
This is intended to shift the argument from the legal realm, which is where it should be, into the emotional, thereby eliminating rational debate. In other words, as tragic an event as this is, it isn't the basis for changing the constitution. Nor is it reasonable to assume that our legal system can account for every misdeed committed in society. Make no mistake, though, for some folks, every tragedy is an opportunity to consolidate power. The more emotionally compelling the tragedy, the better.
"Now, you don't support bullying and bigotry, do you?" ask the many ambitious politicians and the ratings hungry media. "Because, if you oppose this congressional bill, which, henceforth shall be known as "The Anti-Bullying and Bigotry Bill" you will be responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of innocent children,"
"I mean, why not support it?" They ask. "It's only going to stop bullies, racists, and homophobes.
It'll have no impact at all on non-hateful speech, we assure you."
Hollywood immediately responds to the hue and cry by making a film or two about the terrible event. After all, they know a good story when they hear one. Celebrities line up by the hundreds in opposition to bullies and bigots. Political action committees buy airtime. And, before you know it, a fair portion of the country is on the bandwagon, celebrating the end of bullying and bigotry, because passing a bill will, no doubt, do the trick.
Sure enough, with images of suffering children in their heads Americans pass the bill, and the people applaud, as they vigorously celebrate their righteous good works. Eager, as always, to demonstrate their high but selective moral character.
"What could be wrong with that? I mean, who wants to be a bully or a bigot? Not me, that's for sure." They proclaim.
So, they begin the process of smudging out those few words, written long ago, by men lacking in the necessary understanding of this brave new world of the internet and other related stuff.
"Let's get real, they didn't even have telephones!" The people say.
"Yes, today, love has triumphed!" They shout aloud. "Because that's just the way love rolls!"
And, for the moment everyone is happy. But, eventually, they say less and less, for fear of offending, or being offended. They're patient, however, so they wait and they wait, for love to finally win. Which, hopefully, should be any day now, any day!
Mark Magula