Freedom of speech is a God-given right and it is a right given to all people, even those who are rude, obnoxious, insulting, and hateful. There is no law against any of these undesirable acts.
At least not yet.
There are some who would like to imprison people for the thoughts and words they blog on the Internet because they believe the Internet is different when it comes to free speech. Facebook, for example, has been under attack for allegedly allowing hate speech, but what is hate speech?
Hate speech is defined as communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.
Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women. [uslegal.com]
Right off the bat, this violates the “equal protection under the law” clause. Why should it be OK to be rude, obnoxious, insulting, and hateful to white, Christian, adult men. We seem to be the only ones not protected.
If you are a Christian who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, are you spewing hate against a protected class? However that “protected class” is free to unload on you. I agree that people shouldn’t discriminate, they shouldn’t be rude, or hateful, but who gets to decide when they’ve crossed the line and who gets to decide what they can or cannot say or think?
I also disagree with the stupid “hate crime laws”. If you commit assault and battery, you are guilty of a crime. What difference does it make if you hate the person you assaulted, or if you love him like a brother?
What if you don’t like the idea of Muslim enclaves or believe that Sharia law is a threat to freedom? What if you say anything negative about Muslims? Is that hate speech and should you be arrested for it?
Has this become a country that protects the free speech of hardcore pornographers but not my right to disagree with Sharia law in my blog?
The Brandenburg standard reinforced our free speech rights. Brandenburg v Ohio states that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Does a government boss get to decide your advocacy is lawless? If we relinquish any part of our free speech rights, we leave ourselves open to the tyranny of the government hacks.
With the growth of the Internet, some are demanding the decision about Internet free speech be reconsidered since free speech on the Internet was made based on traditional media. The Internet can lead to lawless action sometime in the future, according to some, which they believe makes it different from traditional media. Opponents to the current free speech parameters on the Internet say that traditional media was well-established at the time of the decision while the Internet is not.
When records, video, movies, and TV were invented, free speech was not given separate sets of rules for those mediums nor should it be for the Internet. Free speech means free speech in all public venues.
The First Amendment is not without limits however. True threats such as posting “I am going to kill Mr. X” is not protected. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a theater. Burning crosses meant to intimidate is not protected. Incitement to lawless action is not protected.
We should think carefully before placing criminal penalties on words and thoughts. We would possibly be punishing people not for acting on thoughts but for their very thoughts. For those who think it can’t happen – it already has.
In the IRS scandal, the agents demanded to know the content of the prayers of religious groups who applied for tax-exempt status. They insisted on seeing their social media postings. They also demanded donor information which could then be used against donors.
It is already illegal to incite to violence. We don’t need another law against it. Free speech is our God-given right and we must not give an inch on this freedom.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
UPDATE...
Here is just
what I’m talking about…
No comments:
Post a Comment