Trump Administration Ministry of Truth to Define and Prosecute "Hate Speech"

[drudge X]

Suddenly, leftists are showing concern for free speech after backing Biden when he wanted to open the office of the ministry of truth.

 

[Clipper]

Only if you threaten her with violence. Its not that complicated

Bondi claims she's going to "go after" those who trade in "hate speech"? Oh, goody! In that case when is she planning on filing charges against Trump to have him impeached, considering he peddles hate every day of the week?

The evidence is there, right in front of the entire country.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Can we stop making Charlie Kirk something he wasn't? He would support this so called Ministry of Truth.

Your claim that he would support something like a Ministry of Truth is full of shit. He constantly gave anyone no matter their stances a chance to talk. You are the worst sort of ignorant.

Here is Mr. Kirk reacting to a South Park episode parodying him. He thought it was hilarious. That is not the response of someone who is against free speech. As always your claims are bullshit how can you be so wrong constantly but keep doing it ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sigh. You really don't get it, at all.

What you don't seem to understand is that any power you grant the government over people you don't like will eventually come around to you...especially when the wrong people get in power. If the First Amendment continues to be infringed, at some point speech that you believe in is going to be censored, and you will have shot yourself in the foot, by not protecting free speech, period.

Haven't you heard the famous quote:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It is that very quote that is being challenged though.

It is one thing to say you dislike, disapprove of, even hate Foxfyre, what she says, what she believes, what she thinks. Your right to say something like that, so long as it doesn't violate any specific rules to which you are subject, is protected speech.

But it is quite something else again to say that Foxfyre should be/must be doxxed, punished, cancelled, attacked, neutralized, killed or whatever, it is no longer protected speech. It becomes hate speech. Telling people to point somebody out, hunt somebody down, get in his/her face and violate his/her rights is hate speech, not protected speech. Telling others that Foxfyre is a danger to them or their loved ones and must be stopped or silenced is hate speech. Not protected speech.

And hate speech is what the Administration is saying will not be allowed.

We can criticize or complain about this or that public figure until the cows come home with impunity so long is it is obvious that the intent is to take them out of office or power at the ballot box. or the intent otherwise is not physical harm.

Once we cross the line and promote the people to take matters into their own hands above and beyond the law, it is no longer protected speech.

 

[buttercup]

I admit that the Fed is entering choppy waters involving itself with restrictions on speech in a country DEFINED by protection of free speech.

As such, who defines and determines where free speech ends? In a sense, we already did long ago when we declared it a crime to yell fire in a crowded theater. And really, how can any individual right be /unlimited/?

Therefore, what Pam is saying (and I agree I remain least impressed by her so far), is that free speech has legal limits.

But I so much dislike the term "hate speech," it implies the viewer somehow could see into the speaker's inner thoughts and intentions of their mind.

But her goal is just because, just like yelling fire in a theater, free speech must have limits and cannot extend beyond where your actions, speech, etc, extend out into curtailing other people's rights.

Therefore, I would suggest the administration avoid the term "hate speech" and replace it with a far more accurate and enforceable one like 'incendiary speech'. Incendiary speech implies an undesirable and observable consequence, not just that you hated something since hate is an ordinary and unavoidable human condition we all suffer as hate goes hand in hand with love. Everyone hates. I hate rap music, green hair and many kinds of seafood; does that make me evil?

Bottom line: if you are in a position of influence as a public figure and you rant death to xyz or that we should kill xyz, over and over, then xyz does get murdered, you probably bear some responsibility, or at least an investigation into whether you should be responsible.

Trampling on free speech? Only if you intend to go out every day calling for the murder of everyone you disagree with. But I agree with Pam in that at this point, /something/ must be done before this thing goes any farther. Enough is enough.

As distasteful as restraining unfettered speech might be, understand that this is only necessary as the only way to deal with the growing fact that people on the Left simply won't otherwise stop calling for the death and murder of everyone they don't like while shooting at them with guns.

And it is clear now that Tyler Robinson got his chops on some social media he belonged to. He went from a fairly normal, promising young man to a radicalized murderer. Someone filled his head with murderous rage against Kirk most probably with the intent that someone act on it.

And lookie this--- turns out that once again, Tyler was all wrapped up with transgenderism.

Democrats now sound no different or better than Iranian islamic fundamentalists issuing a fatwa on someone. All the left have stopped short of doing (so far) is issuing million dollar rewards to the first people to kill this guy or that.

If leftards could simply reign it in and stop being total a-holes, none of this would be necessary.

I disagree with your conclusion, but I appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts.

I've said this before, on other topics, but I'm starting to get the feeling that it applies to this topic too. Knowing what I know about how the powers-that-shouldn't-be operate, when I see comments like "See, because of those bad things happening we have to give up our rights"....what comes to my mind is, who is really behind those reasons being used to manipulate folks to trade liberty for security? It's starting to sound like Problem - Reaction - Solution. As I've said a guhzillion times, that's a deceptive tactic used more often than people realize. Why, because it works, every time. People are tricked into surrendering liberty, for a promised "security."

I agree with what Shannon is saying here. Period.

 

[buttercup]

It is that very quote that is being challenged though.

It is one thing to say you dislike, disapprove of, even hate Foxfyre, what she says, what she believes, what she thinks. Your right to say something like that, so long as it doesn't violate any specific rules to which you are subject, is protected speech.

But it is quite something else again to say that Foxfyre should be/must be doxxed, punished, cancelled, attacked, neutralized, killed or whatever, it is no longer protected speech. It becomes hate speech. Telling people to point somebody out, hunt somebody down, get in his/her face and violate his/her rights is hate speech, not protected speech. Telling others that Foxfyre is a danger to them or their loved ones and must be stopped or silenced is hate speech. Not protected speech.

And hate speech is what the Administration is saying will not be allowed.

We can criticize or complain about this or that public figure until the cows come home with impunity so long is it is obvious that the intent is to take them out of office or power at the ballot box. or the intent otherwise is not physical harm.

Once we cross the line and promote the people to take matters into their own hands above and beyond the law, it is no longer protected speech.

See my reply to toobs, in post #25, because it also answers what you posted.

 

[Foxfyre]

See my reply to toobs, in post #25, because it also answers what you posted.

I don't think it does at all.

But for sake of argument, who should set the definition for what is hate speech other than those legally in authority? Who else but those elected to represent us should do that?

Here at USMB it is ruled that the 'n' word and a couple of others will be regarded as hate speech. That reflects the whole PC schtick promoted by the left--you can't use certain words to refer to certain people or it is hate speech.

But is it really? Where do you draw the line between personal, even hurtful, insults and hate speech? What is the difference between not tolerating hate speech and enforcing common courtesy or consideration for others?

Does calling a black person the 'n' word generally reflects a person's prejudiced opinion about another race or perhaps it is just intended to insult a black person that maybe needs insulting or doesn't.

But does it imply that the black person should be cancelled or attacked or have his/her unalienable or civil rights be violated in any way? Does it encourage people to go after that person in any physical or economic way?

Personally I think only the most hateful, or immature or uncivil or cruel would use the word. It is definitely hateful speech and no ethical people would tolerate it in their organization. But I think it falls short of being hate speech.

Speech designed to endanger somebody's physical person or peace, that is intended or is likely to evoke physical response from people in a way that harms another person or person should be classified as hate speech.

 

[toobfreak]

I disagree with your conclusion, but I appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts.

What the hell was my conclusion?

Knowing what I know about how the powers-that-shouldn't-be operate, when I see comments like "See, because of those bad things happening we have to give up our rights"....what comes to my mind is, who is really behind those reasons

But you see, I never said that. Like I said, no right is not without limitations, and our right to free speech is already limited. Your right to own a gun is limited. Your right to assemble publicly to protest things is limited.

So you aren't really giving up anything. If I understand Bondi right, all she is really advocating for is for some legal framework be created on how to handle when people take free speech so far to start calling for public murders and executions.

There must be some mechanism of recourse to stop this before we devolve into a 3rd world society.

I suppose then my conclusion is that if some few radical assholes were not calling for Kirk's murder, radicalizing kids to be their assassins, then carrying this out, none of this would be necessary, but since self-restraint is a much slower and more difficult process, Bondi is looking to start cracking down and holding accountable those forces behind such actions both funding and organizing such hate and violence against their "political adversaries."

I'm betting that Kirk had no idea and never saw himself as anyone's "adversary."

I agree that something must be done now. I'm not so sure the legal footing on which for the Fed to get involved. I'm even less sure that we need 50 different state solutions because I know many of them will be bad solutions not addressing the matter at all.

I suppose for now, we will have to wait and see where this goes and how it all pans out. But I guarantee leftists will not like it because the inevitable solution will be a savage curtailing of leftist progressivism.

That social experiment has been a booming failure.

 

[buttercup]

I don't think it does at all.

But for sake of argument, who should set the definition for what is hate speech other than those legally in authority? Who else but those elected to represent us should do that?

Here at USMB it is ruled that the 'n' word and a couple of others will be regarded as hate speech. That reflects the whole PC schtick promoted by the left--you can't use certain words to refer to certain people or it is hate speech.

But is it really? Where do you draw the line between personal, even hurtful, insults and hate speech? What is the difference between not tolerating hate speech and enforcing common courtesy or consideration for others?

Does calling a black person the 'n' word generally reflects a person's prejudiced opinion about another race or perhaps it is just intended to insult a black person that maybe needs insulting or doesn't.

But does it imply that the black person should be cancelled or attacked or have his/her unalienable or civil rights be violated in any way? Does it encourage people to go after that person in any physical or economic way?

Personally I think only the most hateful, or immature or uncivil or cruel would use the word. It is definitely hateful speech and no ethical people would tolerate it in their organization. But I think it falls short of being hate speech.

Speech designed to endanger somebody's physical person or peace, that is intended or is likely to evoke physical response from people in a way that harms another person or person should be classified as hate speech.

I don't agree with the whole concept of "hate speech" in the first place. You seem to agree that it's a thing. That's a leftist idea. Or more accurately, an authoritarian, Orwellian idea.

The crime is the action. There already are laws against some of the actions you mentioned. By trying to criminalize thought, can't you see all they're doing is finding crafty ways to infringe on free speech? Plus, based on your replies, I think both you and toob didn't really get what I was saying in my previous post. It's OK though, at the moment I don't feel like explaining it again.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't agree with the whole concept of "hate speech" in the first place. You seem to agree that it's a thing. That's a leftist idea. Or more accurately, an authoritarian, Orwellian idea.

The crime is the action. There are already laws against some of the actions you mentioned. By trying to criminalize thought, can't you see all they're doing is finding crafty ways to infringe on free speech? Plus, based on your replies, I think both you and toob didn't really get what I was saying in my previous post. It's OK though, at the moment I don't feel like explaining it again.

Can you not see that shouting fire in a crowded theater is likely to cause injury or death? Should never be acceptable, let along legal?

Can you not see that provoking an angry mob to do violence or mayhem to another person or persons is just as deadly? Just as unacceptable. Can be just as deadly?

If you think Foxfyre should be able to encourage/provoke somebody to go take shots at Buttercup with impunity, you really do hold some very strange ideas. Ditto if you think libel and slander should be protected speech.

Nothing Orwellian about it. There must be reasonable and necessary limitations on what is legally allowed as free speech in order to protect the rest of our unalienable rights.

 

[buttercup]

Can you not see that shouting fire in a crowded theater is likely to cause injury or death? Should never be acceptable, let along legal?

Can you not see that provoking an angry mob to do violence or mayhem to another person or persons is just as deadly? Just as unacceptable. Can be just as deadly?

Nothing Orwellian about it.

That's not what is being discussed here. We've been talking about "hate speech." Well, I'm not anymore, because I can see this is pointless. Maybe you will listen to what Charlie Kirk said:

 

[Billiejeens]

CENSORSHIP is not conservative.

Pam Bondi is yet to get indictments on anything big.

Next time Congress goes on break, make Blanche the AG...

Focus

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not what is being discussed here. We've been talking about "hate speech." Well, I'm not anymore, because I can see this is pointless. Maybe you will listen to what Charlie Kirk said:

Put that into its proper context and you might have a legitimate argument. In that context he was speaking about exaggerated PC 'laws' that would identify that 'n' word as hate speech.

He would be the first to say that free speech does not include incitement to do violence, inciting panic or riots, libel, slander, etc. That which does or has potential to encourage harm to innocent people.

What Bondi et al are defining as 'hate speech' I am quite sure Charlie would be in perfect agreement with that.

 

[Billiejeens]

Not the first time Pam Bondi became terrifying. Dan and Kash wanted her out.


"Hate Speech" = noticing Epstein was jewish

Focus

 

[Billiejeens]

LOL!!!


"hateful" = noticing fascist state sponsored DNA discrimination called "Affirmative Action"

That's better

 

[Billiejeens]

I can still catcall her, right?

If you weren't a ***.

 

[EMH]

Focus

How much longer should MAGA tolerate Pam Bondi getting NOTHING of any substance out of DOJ???

 

[Billiejeens]

Bondi claims she's going to "go after" those who trade in "hate speech"? Oh, goody! In that case when is she planning on filing charges against Trump to have him impeached, considering he peddles hate every day of the week?

The evidence is there, right in front of the entire country.

The evidence is that you're 12

 

[EMH]

Focus

People from FLA say Pam was almost a GOP version of Kamala, just there to keep the big donors above the law, that she isn't a particularly good attorney, and her first instinct is to cover up and check with her masters before prosecuting anyone...

which is WHAT SHE DID with Epstein... that caused Kash and Dan to want her OUT.

 

[Billiejeens]

People from FLA say Pam was almost a GOP version of Kamala, just there to keep the big donors above the law, that she isn't a particularly good attorney, and her first instinct is to cover up and check with her masters before prosecuting anyone...

which is WHAT SHE DID with Epstein... that caused Kash and Dan to want her OUT.

I'm from Florida.