Home >> United States & Canada >> Race and Multiculturalism  Email  Print The Difference Between Free Speech and Hate Speech David Storobin, Esq. - 5/15/2007 Leftist lawyer Gloria Allred likes to say that there’s a difference between “free speech” and “hate speech” – the former being protected by the U.S. Constitution, while the latter must be criminalized. Such slogans are easy to make, but where must the line be drawn? Is free speech a radical version of what we like, while hate speech is anything we oppose?
I. Free Speech - Burning the American Flag; Hate Speech – Insulting the Koran
The Left has been near-uniformly opposed to a law or Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning. It has repeatedly been held by Courts that flag-burning is legitimate speech because it expresses one's opposition to American policies, government, people and/or culture.
Burning American flags, spitting on them, walking on them has been a normal part of "welcoming" U.S. Presidents and high-ranking diplomats in the Middle East, Latin America and other parts of the world. It is treated as normal, and American officials claim that such “speech” is welcome because it shows that the "welcoming people" have a mind of their own, and the lack of response from Washington is a sign democracy.
Several months ago, however, someone stuffed the Koran into a toilet at Pace University in New York. The University and mainstream media went on full-alert. PU promised to leave no stone unturned to catch and punish the offender. The Left was in uniform agreement that such acts cannot be allowed.
As such, a distinction was drawn – burning, spitting at and walking on the American flag, the symbol of the United States, is “free speech” to be praised, but placing a Koran, the symbol of Islam, in a disreputable place is “hate speech” that must be criminalized.
II. Painting Jesus in urine and Mary in feces – free speech; Cartoon where Muhammad complains that of being followed by extremists – hate speech
Several years ago, New York’s Museum of Modern Arts (MOMA) put up a painting of Virgin Mary in horse dung. Rudy Giuliani and social conservatives protested government funding of this project, as well as a previous painting of Jesus in urine.
Rudy was immediately condemned as a bad lawyer who does not understand the basics of U.S. Constitutional law, while social conservatives were described as “religious nuts” that are destroying the very nature of America by infringing on the Constitutional right to a freedom of speech, free of of religious expression, and separation of Church and State.
Mind you that these so-called “religious nuts” were not opposed to anti-Christian paintings, but rather the government funding of such. Yet, this was too much for the Left – apparently, there’s something in the American Constitution which makes it mandatory for the government to sponsor anti-Christian art.
And yet, when anti-Muhammad cartoons were published – first in Denmark, then elsewhere in Europe – it was debated whether such was a hate crime. Several Europeans were dragged into court to face criminal charges and civil suits for insulting Islam. Charlie Hebdo was sued in France for "public insults against a group of people on the basis of religion" after publishing two of these cartoons. This was described by the Great Mosque of Paris as "an act of deliberate aggression" against Muslims.
To its credit, the Time Magazine started its article at the time of these trials with “Voltaire must be spinning in his grave.” Others, however, discussed how far Europe should go to be culturally more sensitive and closer to those who believe that they are entitled in burn cars and kill innocents in response to any negative speech about them. Here, freedom of speech did not apply. Muhammad cartoons are hate speech, while paintings of Virgin Mary in animal feces in free speech.
III. Kill the honkie – free speech; race and gender are not social constructs, but actual biological facts – hate speech
Prof. Steven Pinker of Harvard University, a superstar experiment psychologist and cognitive scientist, wrote a book in 2002 entitled “The Blank Slate” where he describes the interference from the Left in scientific research. College Professors from Departments of Sociology, Politics and Education, who are usually completely ignorant when it comes to science, insist that science Professors repeat the politically-correct mantras that not only are gender and race differences non-existent, but even the concept of gender and race is nothing more than a “social construct” invented by White Male Racists/Sexists.
The humanities Professors insist that since there’s an overlap in almost everything (e.g., some men have larger breasts than some women; some rare Whites have darker skin than some rare Blacks), then race and gender do not exist.
Thus, a scientist cannot state that male hormones cause boys to have a growth spurt during puberty that is unseen in girls. Indeed, even stating that men are on average taller than women is politically incorrect. Saying such immediately draws a response to the effect of: “It’s not true that on average men are taller than women. Some women are taller than some men.”
That this person does not understand the concept of “average” is ignored as the Left cheers - grateful that someone "proved" that there’s no correlation between male hormones and height. [Some women are taller than some men, but that is normally not because of testosterone, but rather due to genetics: tall parents may have a daughter who’s 5-foot-8, while short parents may have a son who’s 5-foot-5. Nevertheless, the tall girl would be even taller if she were born male, while a short boy would be even shorter if he were female].
Noticing that men are taller than women, that they have different temperaments, different crime rates, different interests and different abilities is considered offensive hate speech. Luckily, it is not criminalized in the United States ... yet. However, recognizing such differences aloud will get a humanities Professor fired and a college student may be forced into "sensitivity training" or even get expelled.
Noticing that races and ethnicities are different in some ways is even worse, and would make one an unrepentant racist. Never mind that evolution means adjusting to your environment, so groups faced with different environments will wind up being different (meaning that Leftist ideology is a denial of the very concept of evolution).
Defending the idea that human groups may be culturally and environmentally different would get one driven out from academia so fast, it would make your head spin.
And yet, when African-American Professors incite their Black students against Whites, they are praised. The Professor, Nikki Giovanni, chosen to eulogize the victims of Virginia Tech Massacre, wrote the following poem:
Can a nigger kill a honkie
Can a nigger kill the Man
Can you kill nigger
Huh? nigger can you kill
Do you know how to draw blood
Can you poison
Can you stab-a-Jew
Can you kill huh? nigger
Can you kill
Can you run a protestant down with your ‘68 El Dorado (that’s all they’re good for anyway)
Can you kill
Can you piss on a blond head
Can you cut it off
Can you kill
A nigger can die
We ain’t got to prove we can die
We got to prove we can kill
They sent us to kill Japan and Africa
We policed europe
Can you kill
Can you kill a white man
Can you kill the nigger
in you
Can you make your nigger mind die
Can you kill your nigger mind
And free your black hands to strangle
Can you kill
Can a nigger kill
Can you shoot straight and
Fire for good measure
Can you splatter their brains in the street
Can you kill them
Can you lure them to bed to kill them
We kill in Viet Nam for them
We kill for UN & NATO & SEATO & US
And everywhere for all alphabet but BLACK
Can we learn to kill WHITE for BLACK
Learn to kill niggers
Learn to be Black men
Prof. Giovanni has been celebrated as Ebony Magazine’s Woman of the Year; received keys from New York, Dallas, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Los Angeles; and dozens of other awards and honors.
Telling young Black students that they are “niggers” unless they kill “honkies” is treated as free speech. Admitting that some diseases may effect some racial and ethnic groups more than others (making it easier to cure sick people) is hate speech.
So what is free speech and what is hate speech? Free speech is radical speech we enjoy, with positive statements about groups like and negative about those we do not. Hate speech is any negative statement about favored people, or positive expression about politically-incorrect groups and ideas.
Criminalization of “hate speech” should be opposed for many reasons – most basic is the Constitutional right to say what we please so long as it does not physically harm someone else.
This is usually countered on the Left with a statement that one is not allowed to yell fire in a movie theater. But yelling “fire” in a movie theater is not mere speech – it is an act. The only reaction one might expect from this is to scare people into running out and potentially injuring one another in the hysteria. Likewise, calling someone to tell them, “give me money or I will kill your child” is not merely speech, it is an act of aggression against a family.
But burning the American flag or the Koran is speech. It is speech meant to express one’s opposition to the United States, to Islam, or to the policies promoted by Americans or Muslims. Seeing a burning flag or a burning book does not cause one the same harm as knowing your child will die unless you pay ransom. It does not necessarily cause hysteria that one would expect in an allegedly burning movie theater. That some people choose to react in violent ways is not the fault of the speaker - it is the fault of those who choose to riot and even murder in response to political cartoons.
But just as importantly, we must recognize that any time the government interferes in our speech, it will necessarily take sides with the ideas that are currently politically correct against those thoughts presently deemed morally wrong. That reason alone should be enough to limit government intervention to the absolute minimum.
|
