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

[EMH]

I'm from Florida.

Did she ever prosecute anyone big that you remember?

Or was she just "there."

 

[buttercup]

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.

I don't think you should go beyond what he stated by making claims about what was in his mind. Unless you're God, you're not omniscient.

I'll say to you pretty much the same thing I said to IM2. (it's funny to me that partisans on both sides think so much alike.) Any power you grant the government when someone you trust is in power is still going to be in the hands of the government when someone you absolutely don't trust is in power. By going along with the Orwellian idea of "hate speech," eventually it'll come back around to you, and all of us. Legitimate criticism of a foreign country could be categorized as "hate speech"....Criticizing a corrupt president or the government could be called a "hate crime"... I could go on but hopefully you get the point. Listen to our founders. Don't get tricked into trading liberty for a promised "security." Because even if you don't believe this now, the corrupt powers who are really running things couldn't care less about your security, OR of course your liberty.

 

[Billiejeens]

Did she ever prosecute anyone big that you remember?

Or was she just "there."

Dwight Gooden !

 

[toobfreak]

I don't agree with the whole concept of "hate speech" in the first place.

Obviously because A). It implies a foreknowledge of a person's mood and intentions leading up to a crime impossible for some law officer after the fact to always know with any certainty or proof at all, and B). Because "hate" is undefined and comes in unlimited degrees, worse, is a normal, unavoidable human condition (you cannot FORCE people to just stop hating!), and C). Because the implementation of recourse against hate speech has been, so far, very arbitrary, sloppy, and one-sided--- often, crimes are committed which clearly were motivated by hate, yet are let slide because prosecuting the perp would not be politically expedient, and crimes which are already obviously already a serious crime get that arbitrary "hate" label just thrown on top for extra measure.

Technically, is there any act of crime or violence where hate isn't a factor? Ever meet a mugger who robbed you out of love?

The crime is the action. There already are laws against some of the actions you mentioned.

BINGO. Most of the hate crimes on the books are already covered by other laws. Hate crime is just a legal patch like Dark Energy is to physics to create an easy bridge to tougher enforcement to get prosecutors extra bonus points on their CV. "It was a Hate Crime, your Honor." The sad fact is that creating hate crime has not discouraged anyone from still committing crimes, the clear intent for creating it.

 

[marvin martian]

I hate Pam Bondi. Is that hate speech?

Do you hate her enough to kill her?

 

[Billiejeens]

I don't think you should go beyond what he stated by making claims about what was in his mind. Unless you're God, you're not omniscient.

I'll say to you pretty much the same thing I said to IM2. (it's funny to me that partisans on both sides think so much alike.) Any power you grant the government when someone you trust is in power is still going to be in the hands of the government when someone you absolutely don't trust is in power. By going along with the Orwellian idea of "hate speech," eventually it'll come back around to you, and all of us. Legitimate criticism of a foreign country could be categorized as "hate speech"....Criticizing a corrupt president or the government could be called a "hate crime"... I could go on but hopefully you get the point. Listen to our founders. Don't get tricked into trading liberty for a promised "security." Because even if you don't believe this now, the corrupt powers who are really running things couldn't care less about your security, OR of course your liberty.

You had that same opinion when it was just your side doing it, yes?

 

[EMH]

Dwight Gooden !

THANKS... a baseball player from da hood for dope...

Too many like Kamala spent all of their resources prosecuting drugs while allowing the bigger criminals to be above the law... I suspect Pam was like that. Her initial panicked response to Epstein, claiming there was "no list" etc... reeked of how Kamala would have acted had a big time Dem donor been in grand jury in CA... I don't think Kamala ever prosecuted a big time Dem, and I suspect Pam has the problem the other way, except her "Republican" definition is Fox News... the W crowd.

 

[Billiejeens]

Obviously because A). It implies a foreknowledge of a person's mood and intentions leading up to a crime impossible for some law officer after the fact to always know with any certainty or proof at all, and B). Because "hate" is undefined and comes in unlimited degrees, worse, is a normal, unavoidable human condition (you cannot FORCE people to just stop hating!), and C). Because the implementation of recourse against hate speech has been, so far, very arbitrary, sloppy, and one-sided--- often, crimes are committed which clearly were motivated by hate, yet are let slide because prosecuting the perp would not be politically expedient, and crimes which are already obviously already a serious crime get that arbitrary "hate" label just thrown on top for extra measure.

Technically, is there any act of crime or violence where hate isn't a factor? Ever meet a mugger who robbed you out of love?


BINGO. Most of the hate crimes on the books are already covered by other laws. Hate crime is just a legal patch like Dark Energy is to physics to create an easy bridge to tougher enforcement to get prosecutors extra bonus points on their CV. "It was a Hate Crime, your Honor." The sad fact is that creating hate crime has not discouraged anyone from still committing crimes, the clear intent for creating it.

It's virtue signaling.

The left invented hate crimes to virtue signal.

 

[toobfreak]

Do you hate her enough to kill her?

I really hate it when people ask questions like this.

 

[buttercup]

You had that same opinion when it was just your side doing it, yes?

I don't do the team "sides" thing. What I care about is fundamental principles and ideas. It sounds like you've never read my posts, because I've said this about 50 trillion times....I think both sides of the party-of-one are corrupt and controlled by the same powers. Apart from Ron Paul, there hasn't been anyone I have felt good about voting for....not to mention that I believe the whole 2-party system is a sham.

 

[Billiejeens]

I don't do the team "sides" thing. What I care about is fundamental principles and ideas. It sounds like you've never read my posts, because I've said this about 50 trillion times....I think both sides of the party-of-one are corrupt and controlled by the same powers. Apart from Ron Paul, there hasn't been anyone I have felt good about voting for....not to mention that I believe the whole 2-party system is a signaling.

Ron Paul was the biggest fraud in history.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think you should go beyond what he stated by making claims about what was in his mind. Unless you're God, you're not omniscient.

I'll say to you pretty much the same thing I said to IM2. (it's funny to me that partisans on both sides think so much alike.) Any power you grant the government when someone you trust is in power is still going to be in the hands of the government when someone you absolutely don't trust is in power. By going along with the Orwellian idea of "hate speech," eventually it'll come back around to you, and all of us. Legitimate criticism of a foreign country could be categorized as "hate speech"....Criticizing a corrupt president or the government could be called a "hate crime"... I could go on but hopefully you get the point. Listen to our founders. Don't get tricked into trading liberty for a promised "security." Because even if you don't believe this now, the corrupt powers who are really running things couldn't care less about your security, OR of course your liberty.

I have listened to Charlie's podcasts enough that I'm pretty sure I'm safe to correctly describe what he classified as hate speech. You're the one who used a few seconds of a video. But you were very sure what he intended with so little context?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

There's no real way to know if the flock understands this, but the obvious problem here is "mission creep". Given the attitudes, tactics and behaviors that we have already clearly seen, there is no reason to believe that this administration's definition of "hate speech" will only become more and more loose, and more and more focused on those who don't agree with them.

As always, the flock will say, "I don't see a thing, I just see evil, so this is good". There is no communicating with that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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."

The other problem is that free speech is being used by China and Russia to attack US "democracy".

At what point does a free society have to protect itself?

 

[Care4all]

What the hell was my conclusion?


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.

So, is calling a politician a Nazi, or Fascist, or Commie, or Marxist, or Socialist or Authoritarian, or a Dictator....
hate speech to be prosecuted???

How about calling them the antichrist?

 

[Care4all]

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.

But the Doj can not make that determination, without Congress defining hate speech that is against the law, and pass it. And even then, it is subject to the Supreme court, shooting the Congress new law down.

Can you say, I wish he or she, were dead? Or I hope they trip going down the stairs? Or someone needs to dox that son of a *****... Or I hope so and so gets punched in the nose and gets a bleed that won't stop! Or homeless people need to be executed. Or I hope to be by Christ's side when he casts that man of perdition... alive, and in to the Lake of fire? Or something like, I hope someone kills her! Or, someone needs to do him in! Or saying, so and so is a Dictator wannabe! Or saying to someone, you're a Nazi, or Commie, or Fascist, or Socialist, or Stalinist etc

All of that right now is protected free speech...(i.e. the action of doxing is against the law, saying so and so should be doxxed, is protected free speech and not a hate crime)

 

[Foxfyre]

But the Doj can not make that determination, without Congress defining hate speech that is against the law, and pass it. And even then, it is subject to the Supreme court, shooting the Congress new law down.

Can you say, I wish he or she, were dead? Or I hope they trip going down the stairs? Or someone needs to dox that son of a *****... Or I hope so and so gets punched in the nose and gets a bleed that won't stop! Or I hope to be by Christ's side when he casts that man of perdition... alive, and in to the Lake of fire? Or something like, I hope someone kills her! Or, someone needs to do him in! Or saying, so and so is a Dictator wannabe! Or saying to someone, you're a Nazi, or Commie, or Fascist, or Socialist, or Stalinist etc

All of that right now is protected free speech...(i.e. the action of doxing is against the law, saying so and so should be doxxed, is protected free speech and not a hate crime)

Encouraging somebody to commit a crime is indeed against the law as much as committing that crime is against the law. The DOJ has every authority to make an evaluation re whether such crime has been committed.

 

[Care4all]

Encouraging somebody to commit a crime is indeed against the law as much as committing that crime is against the law. The DOJ has every authority to make an evaluation re whether such crime has been committed.

What is the definition of encourage? It has to be specifically defined by Congress when they write this new law...

When are you just speaking your mind, saying what you feel or wish or think, or hope vs. encouraging someone else, to commit a crime?

 

[Mac1958]

So, is calling a politician a Nazi, or Fascist, or Commie, or Marxist, or Socialist or Authoritarian, or a Dictator....
hate speech to be prosecuted???

How about calling them the antichrist?

I think it's safe to assume that this will be in one direction only.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

So, the Trump regime wants to outlaw their version of hate speech?