Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Criminalizing Thought - Hate Speech/Crime Legislation
This book sounds very interesting.
See:
The problem here is the Left is not the most appropriate label in certain issues. Liberalism is. Because, for example, with homosexism, you can be conservative in economics and liberal with homosexuality and still vote Republican. Are you a "left-winger?" No. True that most homo activists are lefties/liberals, but now we are seeing some change in this. Why? Very briefly, look at the Nazi - SM Harry scandal discussion. It encompasses and conceals many reasons.
Or to blow you up, whatever they find easier. Usually they find blowing up people is easier. See what they did to Schlesinger above.
Which goes to show how fanatical people are (and that certainly applies to liberals) and how much "normal" people employ heavy duty cogntive selection in understanding the world on a 24/7 basis. Which most certainly applies to homosexists.
UPDATE jan-24-2005:
Simple and nice description of this problem of cognitive selection and how the public falls prey to well orchestrated lies to promote homosexuality or any other public policy - from Stuart Buck:
Gus Van Horn: We have already made a mistake by introducing the dangerous concept of "hate crimes" into our legal system.
"Mistake" here is a huge euphemism. It is a crime.
UPDATE jan-21-2005:
Fulton Huxtable talks about hate.
Hatred is an intense dislike of something. Hatred, like love, may be rational or irrational. If you love freedom, you hate enslavement. The hatred of those things which may destroy your values is perfectly rational. Such hatred is good.
Since the defining characteristic of hate is the intensity of your dislike of something, the campaign by the haters of hate is really an attempt to destroy your capacity for a passionate belief in anything, rendering you impotent to oppose them. Create a nation of sheep, individuals incapable of loving or hating anything, a nation of docile, pliable people and you have the kind easily manipulated by statists.
[end of update]
UPDATE Jan 20-05: From LaShawn
Yep, that is all liberals care about, throw in the non-Christian religions as well. And it is a fine example of homosexist values (women and children are just invisible trash), but race/homosex, which are all related to a man´s sphere of power issues, are all important.
Update: feb-4-2005 - From TVC - pdf report
Hate Crime Laws Should Not Grant Special Rights to Homosexuals
This perception of the construct of "victim class" is really smart. And what a victim class it is: one of the most powerful political lobbies, tremendous power in the media/culture industry, and heels deep in the education system. All of this maintained by millions of dollars.
Going back to Barber´s point, if we applied "hate" speech punishment to every epiteth that is said to women and about women, most of pornographers would have to be jailed. Obviously, in a sick and violent society towards women, that´s not what they want to use this absurdly discriminatory legislation for.
So why can´t we get rid of these laws? Where are the people questioning how unconstitutional they are?
Update: jan-23-2005
Developments in the Christians Free Speech at the Philadelphia Homo Parade case:
Tupelo, MS - “Speech cannot be . . . punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”- United States Supreme Court.
Update: jan-25-2005
This quote came from a comment in Scrappleface, regarding Hillary Clinton´s attempt to reach out to pro-lifers at the same time she wants support from pro-choicers. It then made me think about the general hypocrisy of our current times:
a PC freedom of speech. a liberal-only freedom of thought. a vicious, intolerant tolerant. a self-pitying pride. a non-violent name-calling.
copied here from Aug. 24 - 2004 - (I´m just organizing one entry that contains all related posts to this subject)
I have just received one more spam e-mail advertising incest pornography, the catch phrase being, "Would you like to ********** your daughter?"
Now, only in a very violent, sick society, is this labeled free speech and not immediately framed as what it is, incitement to sexual violence in the sphere of the family.
In our deeply putrid world, "hate" speech is defined as:
Notice that no speech that intends to hurt and intimidate someone (even in the case of a child) regarding the sexual sphere is included above.
Thought Control
It is easy to note the irresponsible pro-homosexual bias in the above explanation.
Adults, the media, peer pressure, family experience, etc., are always having influence and impact on an individual. What influence, how much, in what way, etc, is what varies.
Furthermore, the above explanation, in order to legitimize homosexuality, does not distinguish between desire (or the ridiculously murky concept of orientation) and sexuality. Human sexuality is the full aggregate of a person´s psychology (both conscious and unconscious), their intellectual thinking, their attitudes, their values, their desires, their dysfunctions, their emotions, and their behaviors about sex/body/intimacy. It is like comparing a pebble to a mountain.
Therefore any adult could possibly influence another person´s sexuality. A person´s environment, their experiences, their relationships, in short, anything and everything can have an impact on a human being. This does not mean we are clones and experience everything in the same way. Given that human beings are not ameobae and a lot of our psychological make-up is due to external influence, to say a homosexual could not influence others regarding sexuality is profoundly untrue.
Notice also that in the example given, the criticism is from a religious perspective. That is only one anti-homosexual perspective, but there are other ones, such as the social sciences themselves. One does not need to be of a certain religion to understand why homo and bisexuality are dysfunctional and to know they include every form of psychological and behavior problems we have in the world (such as psychological/sexual violence, prostitution, sexual harassment, emotional/personality development problems, bigotry, ignorance, lack of respect/aggression, etc).
This is where the current homosexist culture we live shows it´s true colors. When it frames the objection to homosexuality (which includes all these problems above) as a form of hate and not as a legitimite criticism to a whole set of dysfunctional, and in many cases, harassful and violent actions, it is simply legitimating a lot of aggression, denigration, and violence committed by homosexuals and bisexuals.
So, how is speech being framed in our wonderful society? Objecting to homosexuality (which includes the full range of violent behaviors we know of regarding sex between people of the same sex, although not for all homosexuals) is currently framed as "hate" speech. Pedophilia, which is very similar to adult homosexuality, another dysfunctional form of human sexuality, is just barely not being framed as a legitimate make-up of a person. Therefore, we can still object to pedophilia and not be labeled filled with "hate." Who knows how long that will last. Inciting people to sexually torture children is "free" speech, specially if framed in a pornographic text format.
One of the reasons for this barbaric state of affairs, is that homosexuals are one of the most prominent circuses in society (in the bread and circus sense - see below). Their propaganda functions as a distraction to the horrible problems we have with violence and emotional and mental diseases, which are very much a part of many people´s sexuality.
I also think that to denigrate sexuality, in all its expressions and behaviors where there is a component of sleaze, is a form of aggression. Obviously, in a sick society, denigrating sexuality in every way, except when it has something to do with objecting the norm/legitimation of homosexuality, is deemed free speech.
A homo or bisexual can write or say sexually sleazy things to a person, and this is not hate speech, but if this person objects to homosexuality, this is hate speech. To take the contrast degree one level higher, a homosexual can incite homosexual incest with children, such as in the initial example, and that is not deemed hate speech, if it is done in a pornographic format, but if the child objects to homosexuality, the child is "filled with hate," to use one of gay activists most used propaganda slogans.
It´s just barbaric.
Update: Feb.1 - 2005
FIRE reminded him of the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case, decided in the darkest days of World War II, that remains the law of the land. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Which perfectly ties into the post on intolerance of tolerance.
The line between wanting to change society for the better and enforcing submission to a particular way of thinking can be a fine one. After all, if you want to change society, you have to decide what part of society needs fixing. Both sides of the political spectrum have come to their own conclusions in that regard, but the Left's efforts to eradicate injustice and discrimination have led it down an extaordinary road: the actual criminalization of ... what we think. ... That's what hate crime legislation is all about.
Tammy Bruce - The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds.
See:
Gary Waltrip: Everywhere, Americans are under strong societal and group pressures to conform to a leftist political orthodoxy, with social ostracism, personal defamation, and loss of income as punishment for those who refuse to submit. Tammy uses Dr. Laura Schlesinger as her first example. Dr. Schlesinger merely voiced honest, but not hateful, opinions about the nature of homosexuality. GLAAD, a radical gay activist group, distorted Schlesinger's actual statements or simply lied about what she really said and meant. They pressured her sponsors to abandon support for her TV show. Schlesinger lost her show as sponsors bailed out.
The Left is great at blackmail, defamation and coercion. Liberal-left groups are intellectually dishonest and openly malicious to those who express honest disagreement, and sometimes seek the personal or professional destruction of those they consider political enemies. That is Tammy's message in a nutshell, and it dovetails very well with that of Ann Coulter, in her book "Slander."
The problem here is the Left is not the most appropriate label in certain issues. Liberalism is. Because, for example, with homosexism, you can be conservative in economics and liberal with homosexuality and still vote Republican. Are you a "left-winger?" No. True that most homo activists are lefties/liberals, but now we are seeing some change in this. Why? Very briefly, look at the Nazi - SM Harry scandal discussion. It encompasses and conceals many reasons.
Michael Bird: Yes, the radical left, The Thought Police, are tolerant and peaceful and loving and kind unless you disagree with them, then they turn ugly and vicious and threaten to blow up things.
Or to blow you up, whatever they find easier. Usually they find blowing up people is easier. See what they did to Schlesinger above.
Michael Bird: Her story of two murders was quiet enlightening. It seems that not far from where Matthew Shepard was murdered, a young woman who didn't want to abort the pregnancy that resulted from an elicit affair with an adult man was brutally murdered by her former lover. You probably never heard about that one on the national airwaves, it didn't fit into the agenda of the left to make a big deal out of it, but you sure heard about Matthew Shepard, didn't you?
Howard Myers:
The British are coming!!(Okay, the liberals are coming.) And they want to control your thoughts not just your actions. The liberals want you to be so afraid of saying or doing the `wrong' thing you will be afraid to even think the `wrong' thing. And of course the liberal establishment is more than willing to let you know what is right and what is wrong.[...]
But she has not deserted the liberal cause, it has deserted her. They no longer want strong minded independent women or anyone else that thinks for themselves. They want someone they can control and that will help them control others.
J. S. Lewis "bibliophile": If the book had been written by a conservative, it would easily be billed as propaganda. The fact that it was written by a liberal (former President of the LA chapter of NOW), gives the book formidable credentials and a unique voice.
Which goes to show how fanatical people are (and that certainly applies to liberals) and how much "normal" people employ heavy duty cogntive selection in understanding the world on a 24/7 basis. Which most certainly applies to homosexists.
UPDATE jan-24-2005:
Simple and nice description of this problem of cognitive selection and how the public falls prey to well orchestrated lies to promote homosexuality or any other public policy - from Stuart Buck:
The problem is that, by hypothesis, the general public isn't well-educated on any given issue, and doesn't have good intuitions as to statistics, etc. People -- even (or especially) otherwise intelligent people -- don't form very many of their public policy opinions by using their own personal expertise. If the "good guys" "expose" the falsehoods of the "bad guys," the "bad guys" are going to do the same in response (or what appears to be the same). Then, whether they know it or not, people are going to decide on the grounds that they feel a more visceral attraction to the story told by one side versus the other. (When intelligent people do this, they tend to be better at concocting post-hoc rationalizations to hide their true decision-making process even from themselves.) Thus, without a public that is well-educated on every possible issue, even the "good side" might find it pragmatically useful to "lie" in order to match the colorful and poignant stories told by the other side.
Gus Van Horn: We have already made a mistake by introducing the dangerous concept of "hate crimes" into our legal system.
"Mistake" here is a huge euphemism. It is a crime.
UPDATE jan-21-2005:
Fulton Huxtable talks about hate.
Hatred is an intense dislike of something. Hatred, like love, may be rational or irrational. If you love freedom, you hate enslavement. The hatred of those things which may destroy your values is perfectly rational. Such hatred is good.
Since the defining characteristic of hate is the intensity of your dislike of something, the campaign by the haters of hate is really an attempt to destroy your capacity for a passionate belief in anything, rendering you impotent to oppose them. Create a nation of sheep, individuals incapable of loving or hating anything, a nation of docile, pliable people and you have the kind easily manipulated by statists.
[end of update]
UPDATE Jan 20-05: From LaShawn
So we already know blacks and homosexuals are among the “protected classes” the laws are designed for. Skin color and sexual preferences. That’s all liberals care about. But let’s say you’re a man and you hate women. Is wife-beating a hate crime? Is raping a woman a hate crime? What about raping a black woman? Is it a hate crime only if you’re doing it because she’s black? Is the crime qualitatively worse because you hate blacks, women or both?
Yep, that is all liberals care about, throw in the non-Christian religions as well. And it is a fine example of homosexist values (women and children are just invisible trash), but race/homosex, which are all related to a man´s sphere of power issues, are all important.
Update: feb-4-2005 - From TVC - pdf report
Hate Crime Laws Should Not Grant Special Rights to Homosexuals
As we have seen, there is no epidemic of hate crimes in the United States; hate crime laws criminalize a person’s feelings or thoughts; violate free speech; and create a permanent “victim class” that receives special rights not afforded other citizens. Hate crime laws are frequently expanded to include so-called “hate speech” or actions that might be perceived by a person to be hateful. Hate crime laws should not protect a deviant sexual behavior that millions of Americans oppose.
This perception of the construct of "victim class" is really smart. And what a victim class it is: one of the most powerful political lobbies, tremendous power in the media/culture industry, and heels deep in the education system. All of this maintained by millions of dollars.
There are so many voices out there--on the ideological right and left--but it seems to make no difference. The Founders' Constitution grows more threadbare by the minute. An American citizen has already been jailed for saying the word "nigger" (white, of course; there would not be enough jails to incarcerate the blacks who use the expression), so the precedent has been set--punishment by the state for the use of an "incorrect" word.
Going back to Barber´s point, if we applied "hate" speech punishment to every epiteth that is said to women and about women, most of pornographers would have to be jailed. Obviously, in a sick and violent society towards women, that´s not what they want to use this absurdly discriminatory legislation for.
From Tammy Bruce - The Death of Right and Wrong:
"The Left has to restrict thought to destroy the concept of judgement and undermine notions of right and wrong" (see full quote on page 19). Tammy describes the Left's worldview is a world of self-gratification that requires an end to personal responsibility. Values, decency, and knowing right from wrong - and having the courage to act on that knowledge - are all verboten.
Some people in this country seem to want to enjoy the privileges of the Communist Party as it was in the Soviet Union--to be completely immune from criticism and to make sure none of their ideas or policies, no matter how cockamamie, is questioned. Hence the eagerness to brand all their critics, legitimate or otherwise, as peddlers of hate speech, and to push the government into criminalizing it.
A free society, if it's to remain free, must leave even genuine hate speech free to be combatted by reason and education. The alternative is to move toward totalitarianism, in which thinking the wrong thoughts can land you in prison or in front of a firing squad.
So why can´t we get rid of these laws? Where are the people questioning how unconstitutional they are?
Update: jan-23-2005
Developments in the Christians Free Speech at the Philadelphia Homo Parade case:
Tupelo, MS - “Speech cannot be . . . punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”- United States Supreme Court.
Update: jan-25-2005
This quote came from a comment in Scrappleface, regarding Hillary Clinton´s attempt to reach out to pro-lifers at the same time she wants support from pro-choicers. It then made me think about the general hypocrisy of our current times:
"And I'm an atheistic Christian. A compassionate liberal. An unbiased reported. An educated moron."
a PC freedom of speech. a liberal-only freedom of thought. a vicious, intolerant tolerant. a self-pitying pride. a non-violent name-calling.
copied here from Aug. 24 - 2004 - (I´m just organizing one entry that contains all related posts to this subject)
I have just received one more spam e-mail advertising incest pornography, the catch phrase being, "Would you like to ********** your daughter?"
Now, only in a very violent, sick society, is this labeled free speech and not immediately framed as what it is, incitement to sexual violence in the sphere of the family.
In our deeply putrid world, "hate" speech is defined as:
- Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
Notice that no speech that intends to hurt and intimidate someone (even in the case of a child) regarding the sexual sphere is included above.
Thought Control
- For example, for a college professor to say, "Lesbians should not be schoolteachers," could be considered hate speech. The professor could be denied tenure, even if he were expressing his religiously-based belief that homosexuals should not be put in positions where they can influence young people. Underlying such a claim is the belief that homosexuals in positions of influence over young people might influence their sexuality. Opponents would argue that the underlying theory behind the words suggests a false understanding of the nature of human sexuality with their usage designed to promote fear of homosexuals and their supposed influence on children among non-homosexuals, so leading to hatred of, and discrimination against, homosexuals. (same link as above)
It is easy to note the irresponsible pro-homosexual bias in the above explanation.
Adults, the media, peer pressure, family experience, etc., are always having influence and impact on an individual. What influence, how much, in what way, etc, is what varies.
Furthermore, the above explanation, in order to legitimize homosexuality, does not distinguish between desire (or the ridiculously murky concept of orientation) and sexuality. Human sexuality is the full aggregate of a person´s psychology (both conscious and unconscious), their intellectual thinking, their attitudes, their values, their desires, their dysfunctions, their emotions, and their behaviors about sex/body/intimacy. It is like comparing a pebble to a mountain.
Therefore any adult could possibly influence another person´s sexuality. A person´s environment, their experiences, their relationships, in short, anything and everything can have an impact on a human being. This does not mean we are clones and experience everything in the same way. Given that human beings are not ameobae and a lot of our psychological make-up is due to external influence, to say a homosexual could not influence others regarding sexuality is profoundly untrue.
Notice also that in the example given, the criticism is from a religious perspective. That is only one anti-homosexual perspective, but there are other ones, such as the social sciences themselves. One does not need to be of a certain religion to understand why homo and bisexuality are dysfunctional and to know they include every form of psychological and behavior problems we have in the world (such as psychological/sexual violence, prostitution, sexual harassment, emotional/personality development problems, bigotry, ignorance, lack of respect/aggression, etc).
This is where the current homosexist culture we live shows it´s true colors. When it frames the objection to homosexuality (which includes all these problems above) as a form of hate and not as a legitimite criticism to a whole set of dysfunctional, and in many cases, harassful and violent actions, it is simply legitimating a lot of aggression, denigration, and violence committed by homosexuals and bisexuals.
So, how is speech being framed in our wonderful society? Objecting to homosexuality (which includes the full range of violent behaviors we know of regarding sex between people of the same sex, although not for all homosexuals) is currently framed as "hate" speech. Pedophilia, which is very similar to adult homosexuality, another dysfunctional form of human sexuality, is just barely not being framed as a legitimate make-up of a person. Therefore, we can still object to pedophilia and not be labeled filled with "hate." Who knows how long that will last. Inciting people to sexually torture children is "free" speech, specially if framed in a pornographic text format.
One of the reasons for this barbaric state of affairs, is that homosexuals are one of the most prominent circuses in society (in the bread and circus sense - see below). Their propaganda functions as a distraction to the horrible problems we have with violence and emotional and mental diseases, which are very much a part of many people´s sexuality.
I also think that to denigrate sexuality, in all its expressions and behaviors where there is a component of sleaze, is a form of aggression. Obviously, in a sick society, denigrating sexuality in every way, except when it has something to do with objecting the norm/legitimation of homosexuality, is deemed free speech.
A homo or bisexual can write or say sexually sleazy things to a person, and this is not hate speech, but if this person objects to homosexuality, this is hate speech. To take the contrast degree one level higher, a homosexual can incite homosexual incest with children, such as in the initial example, and that is not deemed hate speech, if it is done in a pornographic format, but if the child objects to homosexuality, the child is "filled with hate," to use one of gay activists most used propaganda slogans.
It´s just barbaric.
Update: Feb.1 - 2005
FIRE reminded him of the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case, decided in the darkest days of World War II, that remains the law of the land. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Which perfectly ties into the post on intolerance of tolerance.
Comments:
Post a Comment
