February 02, 2009

"Hate speech" definition expanding again

Is this a surprise, given that die-hard liberals run the White House and Congress?

In a petition to the Federal Communications Commission last week, the National Hispanic Media Coalition claims hate speech is “prevalent” on national cable-news networks and wants the government to do something about it.

That was one of the assertions made by the group in a formal request that the commission open a notice of inquiry into “the extent, the effect and possible remedies” to what it said was a pervasive problem, and not just on conservative talk radio.

NHMC, a nonprofit Los Angeles-based media-advocacy group, cited a 2007 Media Matters study that concluded “the alleged connection between illegal immigration and crime” was discussed on 94 episodes of CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, 66 times on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and 29 times on Glenn Beck’s Headline News show.

And here's the kicker:

NHMC defined hate speech as speech whose cumulative effect is to create an atmosphere of hate and prejudice that “legitimizes” violence against its targets.

We recently saw how the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee wanted the mere saying of a racial epithet to be a hate crime. Now, the NHMC wants -- now understand this -- speech to be "studied" for possible "remedies" ... because of some esoteric "cumulative effect" it may have on a specified group.

Acting FCC chairman Michael Copps has stated that "something" should be done about hate speech (this was in reaction to Don Imus's comments about the Rutgers women's b-ball team). But there's obviously a huge difference between exploring a legitimate political topic -- crime and illegal immigration -- and tasteless, supposedly comedic comments on a "shock jock" radio show.

Copps (appropriate name, eh?) said,

As an academic I taught the beauties of the First Amendment for many years, so nobody is looking to supplant or run roughshod over it. But we have a pressing national problem that I think lots of people are determined to get a resolution of.

What does that mean, precisely, Mr. Copps? What's more of a pressing national problem -- illegal immigrant crime ... or the mere discussion about it? I love that unintentional dichotomy Copps offers: We're not gonna run "roughshod" over the 1st Amendment, but "we gotta do something." It's hard to see what "solution" wouldn't "run roughshod" over the 1st Amendment.

Imagine the possibilities if such "hate speech" regulations go into effect. Certain websites would face sanctions for hateful messages such as this. "Diversity" and/or "Multicultural" seminars that make blanket assumptions that all white people are inherently racist (and thus responsible for just about every conceivable societal ill) will be on precarious legal ground. (More examples here.)

Then again, maybe they won't. Because, unfortunately, many think groups like the NHMC and the AAADC are fighting the "good fight." To these "progressives"/liberals, just like minorities cannot be racist, so too can they not utter "hate speech." These terms only have meaning when applied to the majority.

Colleges and universities have demonstrated their belief in this philosophy. Public school districts have too. As these institutions are largely run by "progressives"/liberals, it certainly makes sense now that they run government that they'll attempt to infuse this philosophy upon American jurisprudence.

Posted by Hube at February 2, 2009 04:41 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

This is positively frightening, but I see it creeping into our society little by little.

I saw an article today where some rugby team (I think it was in England) had to change their name from "The Crusaders" because certain people said that it reminded them of religious "crusades".

Geez, get over it.

Posted by: Shirley at February 2, 2009 05:55 PM

The best quote comes right from the article:
"...a 2007 Media Matters study that concluded 'the alleged connection between illegal immigration and crime' ..."

I'm here to state that illegal immigration is a crime. They put "illegal" right in the name so it doesn't confuse you.

Posted by: Brud Lee at February 3, 2009 11:37 AM

...and if you dare to suggest that Congress's failure to regulate subprime lending at Fannie and Freddie (see also: Soviet-style economic central planning) led to the housing market bubble, you're a racist. Funny, because implying that all subprime housing loans went to minorities is inherently racist.

Posted by: G Rex at February 3, 2009 03:33 PM


Did anyone actually call you the "r" word after your comments earlier on DELib?

Posted by: h. at February 3, 2009 05:58 PM

Actually, no, to their credit. Just more claims that the "stupid wingnut talking point" had been debunked...by consensus no doubt. I have heard the racism cries in other outlets, though, and there was another comment that wingnuts want to blame Barney Franks 'cause he's gay.

Posted by: G Rex at February 3, 2009 06:14 PM

I truly think libs have more racist and bigoted thoughts floating around their empty heads than anyone. I bet they would remove the words "black" and "gay" from the dictionary if they could get away with it. I quite often shake my head in disbelief at the lengths they go to extract anything racist or bigoted in common conversation.

Posted by: h. at February 4, 2009 09:12 AM

h, I'm convinced you're right. While I've spent more time around Republicans in my life, I've heard far more racist comments from Democrats than Republicans. This isn't to say that the Republicans are blameless on this issue, just that Democrats are worse.

Posted by: Paul Smith at February 4, 2009 10:43 AM

We are in SUCH deep shit right now it's not even funny.

And BTW, Hube, why don't you change your RSS feed to "full" instead of partial? It's not like you have ads here as a reason to drive traffic to the site. I keep up via a newsreader (and I had a devil of a time finding your RSS subscription link BTW) and it would be so much easier to just be able to read it there.

Just a thought. :-)


Posted by: ScreenRant.com at February 5, 2009 12:23 PM

I would argue that a lot of criticism of Israel is out of bounds and both drives and is driven by antisemitism. Would any of these groups agree that relentless criticism of Israel has a "cumulative effect" that must be remedied.

Posted by: soccer dad at February 11, 2009 10:38 AM