With their cameras rolling, journalists from a Swedish Newspaper used data gathered from “Researchgruppen, an organisation with links to the far left, which traced 6,200 accounts through the forum platform Disqus” to confront “right wing” commenters, as reported at Breitbart London.
Oftentimes challenging perceived “hate speech” is really about “speech suppression.”
According to author, M.E. Synon, editor Thomas Mattsson insists his newspaper’s exposés are not about “individuals who wish to be anonymous in immigration debates, but those who are diligently spreading xenophobia.”
“He presented the Swedish mainstream media as being the source of truth which must combat unregulated online sites: ‘The hate sites focus on immigration and run stories which are so-to-say 50 per cent true, but they very often to not give the readers the full truth.'”
The story is reminiscent of when the Journal newspaper published “all handgun permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties,” as reported at CNN.
The problem with suppressing and criminalizing speech, of course, boils down to this: Who gets to be the judge of what is hateful?
Although it is a fundamental right of all Americans guaranteed in the First Amendment, it seems that some lawmakers, such as Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, believes it is the federal government’s job to determine what speech is “hateful.” Markey “has introduced legislation calling for the government to investigate ‘hate speech’ on broadcast, cable, and Internet outlets,” as reported at Newsmax.
Citing a “report,” the Huffington Post recently lamented that Robert James Talbot Jr., who was arrested “en route to conduct [an] armored car robbery,” (en route?) was a regular reader of “anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller,” and therefore online hate speech must be stopped because it encourages acts of violence.
Criminalizing speech is a “worldwide trend,” observed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.
When people refer to the Tea Party as radicals, anarchists, extremists, terrorists, unbiblical, legislative arsonists, committing jihad, have bombs strapped to their chests, committing extortion, taking hostages, want to “tear down the house our founders built,” want to “blow up the global economy,” and are “holding a gun to the head of Americans” is that “hate speech”?
As harshly, but aptly observed at the Washington Times,
“The left slaps the ‘hate speech’ label on just about anything with which it disagrees. They aim to shut down conservative voices.”
It may be harsh, but consider:
- Currently, there is an unreported epidemic of teachers molesting their students, yet the Discovery Channel canceled a series which was “based on actual investigations of teachers molesting students” after pressure from teachers unions who applauded the cancellation.
- As Jeff Dunetz of Liberty Unyielding asks, “Why do college administrations fight racism even going to the extent of filing criminal charges but turn their backs entirely on rampant anti-Semitism on college campuses?”
- Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice withdrew from giving a commencement speech at Rutgers “amid growing opposition among the school’s students and faculty.”
These are just a few recent examples, but just as party trumps race, party trumps hate.