What is Hate Speech?

John R. “Buck” Surdu and Dan Davis

Everything is considered “hate crimes” or “hate speech” these days, if not considered “insurrection.” In the deep recesses of my mind, I recall when federal hate crime laws were being debated that some Congressmen objected because the definition of a “hate crime” was ambiguous, fungible, and subject to wide discretion by prosecutors. But as they do, Congress passed this awful legislation anyway. Does it really matter whether I beat you up because I want to steal your car or that I beat you up because you are in a preferred and more-equal demographic? The result is the same: I beat you up. Why should I receive less punishment because my assault was not characterized as a “hate crime?” Are you less beat up? And how would a prosecutor know the difference anyway? Today, we see that the predictions have come true: the term “hate” is applied by the ruling regime against anything they don’t like.

 

At the same time Leftist prosecutors have contributed to blue cities becoming war zones, the “hate crime” label is applied when convenient or when it fits the current narrative. Can a prosecutor look into my soul to determine whether I beat you up because I hate tall, white men of Lithuanian descent or because I am a thug and a thief. If a black man kills a black man from another gang in Chicago, is that a hate crime? One might argue that rival gangs hate each other. Was it less hateful when a black man shot up a grocery store in buffalo, a General Mills plant in Georgia, or a hospital in Oklahoma, merely because the perpetrator was from a more-equal demographic? When a BLM or Antifa gangster kills someone, why is that not a “hate crime?” If all crimes are “hate crimes,” than the label has no meaning. If all crimes are not hate crimes, then it is a meaningless label applied discriminatorily against less-preferred demographics. In America today, preferred and protected demographics are immune from “hate” it seems.

 

In recent years, the definition of “hate speech” is even more tortured than “hate crimes.” Today social media tech tyrants, media talking heads, members of every perpetual victim class, Leftists, and woke politicians define “hate speech” as “anything I don’t like.” This is the same way that these same people define misinformation. Because the government, the media, social media, celebrities, and fascist organizations like Antifa and BLM are all colluding with each other, the effect is that this definition of “hate speech” is used to bludgeon and censor people who do not support the woke narrative. This situation could easily be reversed if control of the government changes; the label could be used against “progressives,” Leftists, and Marxist. That makes it no less chilling.

 

And even worse, not saying anything is now considered “hate speech” or an equally ill-defined “micro-aggression.” Failure to place a BLM or LGBTQwhatever flag on my Fascistbook profile, is hate (un)speech! Soon, the act of entering into heterosexual marriage will be deemed hate speech!

 

If the people in power (and their weaponized government institutions and media sycophants) are free to define “hate speech” in any convenient way, they can easily define any criticisms of their dismal performance and America Last policies as “hate speech.” This is not a hypothetic assertion; the Left is doing this today.

 

A rigorous definition of “hate speech” is elusive. While law is meant to be fixed and unambiguous, the perception of what is “hate speech” moves with society – and more importantly, the regime in power. “Hate speech” designation is used by the Left and the woke to further divide capriciously our nation and our culture by deciding who should be protected and who is less equal. Such designation, especially when sanctioned by the regime in power, is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, but most of those folks in Washington have never read the document. Is it hate speech to use the “N word?” Perhaps, unless you are a member of the protected demographic, and they you get a pass. Is it hate speech to declare a person to be a racist just because of his skin color or place of birth (e.g., Elon Musk). Is it hate when black people (a more-equal demographic) burn down the house and business of Asians (a less equal demographic)? Is it hate speech to vilify someone who is “less equal?” What we desginate as “hate speech” was once protected by libel and slander laws, defensible by facts.

 

Why wasn’t a play depicting President Trump being assassinated in Central Park “hate speech?” Why wasn’t a comedienne holding up the severed and bloody head depicting President Trump “hate speech?” Why isn’t anything that comes out of the mouth of Louis Farrakhan “hate speech?” When BLM accuses people of racism for questioning them about fraud and theft, the BLM activists’ accusation of racism is “hate speech” but the questioning of how they fraudulently used millions of dollars is “hate speech?” When the President declares that 50% of the nation are racists and evil, that isn’t “hate speech?” When the Department of Injustice designates parents voicing their opinions at school board meetings as domestic terrorists, that isn’t “hate?” When Democrats talk about throwing conservatives into concentration camps for re-education, that’s not “hate speech?” Flying the American flag is “hate speech,” but flying the pride flag is not? Promoting murder under the euphemism of “choice” is not “hate,” but describing the grisly process by which doctors betray the Hippocratic oath is “hate speech.”

 

The hypocrisy of the “hate speech” designation by the Leftist social media tech tyrants and how they use the term indiscriminately to censor anything they don’t like is highlighted starkly in this video from the Babylon Bee.

 

The answer is clear to all but 39% of Americans: when you are a member of a preferred or protected demographic, no matter what you do or say, it is not a “hate crime” or “hate speech.” If you are a member of a less-equal demographic, everything you say is hate speech if some adherent to the woke religion thinks it is.

 

How does one defend oneself from claims of hate speech when its definition is intentionally ambiguous and when merely trying to defend oneself is itself considered “hate?” Someone can call me a racist with no proof or justification other than their own racist notion that skin color is more important that words and deeds. If I argue that I am not a racist the that is further evidence of my racism to those in the woke religion. In defamation law in the US, truth is a defense. In “hate speech” environments, truth has no bearing. If it offends a group that is favored, then it is “hate.” I guess I missed the clause in the Bill of Rights that says we have a right to never be offended!

 

Call a more-equal group a common nickname, and that will be seen as “hate speech.” Call someone in a less-equal group a common nickname, and that is okay – and sometimes encouraged. Call a person of Hispanic lineage any common name: hate speech! Call someone from a transcendent (and less equal group) a Kraut, Dego, Limey, Mick, or some other name, and that is perhaps distasteful, but rarely hate speech.

 

Rather, “the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as other people in similar conditions and circumstances.” Presumably, the federal government is not exempt from this provision; although, folks in Washington seem to regularly set themselves above the law. “Hate speech” is arbitrary and irrational because it violated the Equal Protection Clause by depending on the ever-changing status of the offended party. Which demographic is in favor can change daily or more frequently. Nearly anything can be designated “hate speech.” If it wasn’t so endemic in the “woke culture,” it would be funny to watch the Left eat its own religious zealots for not being woke enough.

 

The Left uses many weapons to divide us, create endless and ever changing perpetual victim groups, and create and accentuate capricious tribes rather than what makes us all Americans. The currency of the Left is hate.” As with most things, the Left accuses conservatives of those things they themselves do. The Left has successfully been allowed by meek and cowardly conservatives to control the language in the Once-United States. The Left uses language as a weapon. The designation of anything the Left finds offensive as “hate speech” is one such weapon. “Hate speech” and “hate crimes” designations must be expunged from our laws and our lexicon. It is time for (what I hope is) most citizens to reject “hate speech” claims out of hand. You might find something repugnant, distasteful, or “beyond the pale,” but designating something as “hate speech” is dangerous, Unconstitutional, indefensible, and hypocritical.

 

 

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA

Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa

Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa

GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA

CloutHub: AFNN_USA