There is no Measure for Hate Speech

Olivia's picture
Submitted by Olivia on Tue, 2018-08-14 22:28

By Olivia Pierson

There is no such thing as hate speech.

Hate speech is an irrational anti-concept dripping in the pure slime of subjectivity without any proper objective measure to give it any qualification. It is exactly the same kind of anti-conceptual abomination as the preposterous notion of a ‘thoughtcrime.’ Yet, the worrying thing is that we know these absurd dogmas can become vague areas for criminal punishment if infractions of them occur, but this can only happen in a society dumbed down enough to accept the distortion of something filthy and murky standing in the place of something clean and clear.

There is only one reason why a ruthless minority within a society pushes to have hate speech laws placed around a population, and that is to blatantly repress the expression of certain ideas.

Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux had their platform taken away because they express ideas which are critical of multiculturalism and feminism and the peecee tyrants just cannot stand it.

New Zealand has just had another example yesterday with Don Brash being given no-platform at Massey University, Palmerston North, by Professor Jan Thomas, its Vice Chancellor. The Prof has issues with Dr. Brash’s commitment to Hobson’s Pledge to the Maori chiefs of 1840:

“he iwi tahi tatou” –
[we are now one people]

As its website states:

Hobson’s pledge to the chiefs laid the foundation of New Zealand’s democracy: One citizen: one vote, regardless of race, colour, religion or gender.

All that sounds very unifying and reasonable to most minds – noble even, but Professor Thomas says she has concerns about:

“Mr Brash’s leadership of Hobson’s Pledge and views he and its supporters espoused in relation to Maori wards on councils.”

Wards, which it needs to be pointed out, were democratically defeated by a referendum.

Professor Thomas said she, “supported free speech on campus, but totally opposed hate speech.”

Huh? What hate speech? What even is hate speech? This is a classic fudge, lie, smear, obfuscation, invention and radically ridiculous way of saying, “I don’t agree with free speech on campus!” But to say that would require personal integrity or something close to courage. Peecee bullies always prefer to speak chin-deep in contradictory, garbled murk. Clear speech, like sunlight to vampires, is what they avoid at all costs.

The worst aspect of criminalising hate speech lies in the futility of the very silly endeavour of policing people’s emotions. Hate like love, or joy, or anger, or fear, or grief is not something that we can or should try to legislate. We’re humans and we’re allowed to feel our emotions and express them, often with vehemence. If love is something that can be deemed a moral value, then so too is hate, for it is the emotional reaction to the very opposite of everything we love and value, therefore completely healthy in moral individuals. We ought to hate that which is evil, that which is horrible, that which is cruel, anti-freedom, anti-human and anti-life.

None of us should be in the business of damning human emotions across the board, let alone setting up an Inquisition which tries to impose which emotions may be expressed and which should be stifled. It is only the physical expression of initiating violence toward another person that demonstrates unhealthy hatred, and which all people in civilised societies need to be legally protected from.

In 1948 when the Human Rights Declaration was being pioneered by Eleanor Roosevelt, it should not be a surprise to notice that it was the Soviet Union which pushed hard for the criminalisation of hate speech. The West: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Nordic States, Australia and New Zealand resisted their demands for international treaties on such a portentous issue, but the Soviet Union got their way in the end.

I urge everyone to read this sordid history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to better understand how these totalitarian peecee thugs eventually achieved their massive impetus – and from the biggest human rights abusers of them all – the enemies of individual rights, the communists. This history answered a question that I raised in my last piece titled, Where are all the literal fascists? I asked the question: Why has the lesson about the devastation of communism upon the human race not been learned?

The answer reveals itself in this history of the Declaration because it shows how they infected it with their pro-communist agenda, ostensibly in the name of being unimpeachably anti-fascist. The travesty is that the communist framers of the UDHR were more totalitarian and fascist than the fascists, and that is now what we are contending with in every university, main stream media platform, bureaucracy and governmental institution. This is what has brought about the decay of Western culture, from dubious parenting styles, to anti-bullying initiatives, to raising a whole generation of children who think that bolstering the whims of their so-called ‘self esteem’ should be the central mission of the entire universe.

All of it started with an askew and deceitful desire to criminalise hate speech.

Update: In the week since the writing of this article, Dr. Don Brash was able to speak at a debate held at Auckland University, titled: "Has PC culture gone too far and is now limiting Free Speech?"

Despite doing their hysterical best to shut Dr. Brash down with megaphones used inside the auditorium, Dr. Brash did speak and even got to point out that they were clearly illustrating the fact that they are in the business of shutting down free speech.

Hate Speech

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Nevertheless, it's worth noting that hate speech, in the form of bigotry, does exist, and does deserves to be fought and defeated. But by (voluntary) society -- not (coercive) government. Ignorant and malicious speech exists as well. It too needs to be socially rejected as much as decently possible. But not censored by the state.

It's also worth noting, on a similar issue, that the ultra-genius Ayn Rand mistakenly thought that slander and defamation were real crimes, and hence speech worth suppressing. But as Olivia points out in her essay, this comes close to being "thought crime" and the criminalization of involuntary emotions.

Hate speech is free speech. Many ideas, things, and people deserve to be hated. As for those which don't, "love speech" can always defeat hate speech, just as good can always defeat evil.

The world today needs to work hard to destroy government censorship, and even social media censorship -- not hate speech.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Outstanding article! And very passionate. It was a pleasure to read it. Smiling

Hate Speech

Chris R's picture

 Your description of Hate Speech certainly provides an inviolable definition . The problem is that the spittle laden invective of the haters has spread the accusative term far beyond any type of workable definition. Great article!

Amen, Sister!

Luke Setzer's picture

Excellent article and spot on analysis!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.