Opinion: “Hate Speech” is a Costume Disguising a Push Towards Speech Codes

A new bill has been proposed in the U.S. House of representatives, sponsored by Rep Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and 12 other Democrats, named “The Hate Crime Reporting Act” (H.R. 3878), seeks to begin a government study on ‘hate speech’.

The bill would look at how the internet, mobile phones, television and radio are used to “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate”.

Of course, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to create a registry of groups and people who do not fall into line with the speech codes of the left.

Back during the height of the Tea Party protests many left wing media correspondents and politicians claimed that the free speech of those in attendance demanding fiscal sanity in Washington were engaging in ‘racist’ and ‘violent’ rhetoric, regardless of the fact that there was never any evidence of racism nor were there any arrests for Tea Party protesters engaging in violence.

Similarly, during the Occupy Wallstreet protests rape tents had to be erected due to the outbreak of rape, assault and a slew of other violent acts and many of the protesters were arrested and there is video evidence of rampant anti-semitism in their protests, yet the liberal media labeled them as peaceful and inclusive.

The recent history of the left shows that, to them, “hate speech” is plainly speech that does not agree with their opinions.

But if hate speech exists, what really is ‘hate speech’? How do we define ‘hate’?

Lets look at how The National Organization for Women, who support the bill, define it. NOW said that they hoped the study would address “…hate speech that vilifies women seeking reproductive health care”.

What does that mean?

It means that to NOW, anyone who disagrees with abortion is engaging in violent hate speech.

Their comment went on to say that such speech “…encourage[s] violence against healthcare providers at women’s clinics which we believe have led to the injuries and death of clinic personnel and volunteers”.

So, to NOW, anyone speaking up on the side of right to life is engaging in hate speech that leads to the bombing of abortion clinics.

The fact that abortion clinic bombings and attacks being outrageously rare aside, they even use the word ‘believe’ in the connection, showing that they have no evidence that pro-life speech leads to these extraordinarily rare attacks.

This same vein of thought lead to San Antonio’s attempt to make it illegal for anyone who had ever disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle to hold office or bid for government contracts by trying to label any speech opposed to homosexuality as ‘hate’.

I personally don’t mind if someone is homosexual. I think what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is their own personal business. But, I also realize that those that disagree with homosexuality no more ‘hate’ homosexuals than a parent ‘hates’ their daughter just because they disagree with her choice to work in porn.

What these “hate speech” designations seek to do is to take certain opinions and make them illegal.

There is no such thing as ‘hate speech’ there is only speech, and all speech is protected by the first amendment.

Yes, this includes racism, sexism, and the like.

Feminists have the right to continue their rabid crusade on everything male and masculine, and I have the right to say I find them to be detestably sexist.

The black panthers and similar groups have the right to speak out against the white race, and I have the right to call them disgusting racists.

The Westboro Baptist Church has the right to blame military deaths on God’s wrath over homosexuals and the rest of us have the right to say they are not true christians and stand in their way when they try to protest at funerals of our nation’s heroes.

Speech is just that, speech. Action is something wholly different. We have the right in this country to have any and every opinion, and to speak that opinion aloud, those around us have the right to judge us on our speech, but not to silence it, no matter what is being said.

This study on hate speech is just a very thinly veiled attempt to not only do opposition research on the taxpayer’s dime, but to create a blacklist of groups and people who dare to disagree with their agendas by filing their free speech and opinions as ‘hate’.

Even if you think that certain opinions do qualify as ‘hate’ just think for a moment, what if those you disagree with were the ones behind that push. What if your opinion was outlawed under the label of ‘hate’?

Andrew Montalvo is a KFYO Talkshow Producer.  Let him know what you think in the comments below.