June 02, 2010

The college model for speech has made it to a FCC complaint

Looks as if being against illegal immigration is the newest form of "hate speech":

Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on "hate speech" and "misinformation" in media. "Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as 'news'," they wrote to the FCC earlier this month.

As for the Internet, it "gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before," they charge. "Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye."

The groups who want this new proceeding include Free Press, the Media Access Project, Common Cause, the Prometheus Radio Project, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Their statement, filed in the Commission's Future of Media proceeding, comes in support of a petition to the agency submitted over a year ago by the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

Let's not be fooled -- what these groups want is NO discussion about illegal immigration, or, if there is to be a discussion, it should be solely empathetic to the immigrants.

But to be sure, however, some folks in the media do cross the line. This nut, John Stokes on KGEZ-AM in Montana, advocated that those who do not speak English should have their hands chopped off. But on the other hand, is an instance where talk radio guy Michael Savage asks "Is it racist to protect your nation against an invading horde, from another nation that wants to sweep you off the map?" even close to that sort of [violent] hate? The NHMC thinks so.

And of course they do. This is what "progressives" do -- they cloak their lust for power and disdain for opposition in good deeds ... in this case, the feelings and "rights" of minorities. American universities do this all the time (just check out the website FIRE), not to mention faddish academic hypotheses like Critical Race Theory. Free speech is anything but if a member of an "aggrieved group" objects. He/she alone has veto power; if he in any way takes offense at something, however innocuous, in a 180 of American justice the "offending" party is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence (again, merely peruse FIRE's archives). Favorite "sentences" include "diversity training," "sensitivity training," and the like.

But back to the FCC inquiry, the NHMC offers up the typical "progressive" "world ends, women, minorities hardest hit" complaint:

The lack of hard-hitting, fair news is felt deeply in communities of color. Traditional media have never been particularly diverse, and rapid deregulation over the last two decades has significantly reduced opportunities for people of color to own and control such media...

Who cares about the traditional media anyway? It's a dying institution! With the Internet -- the New Media -- minorities ... everybody ... has more of a voice than ever before! Never mind the nonsense NHMC says about it near this post's top quote. Citizens have become journalists. Where has the NHMC been the last fifteen years??

The real agenda of the NHMC (noted above, natch) is encapsulated here:

Hate speech against vulnerable groups is pervasive in our media—it is not limited to a few isolated instances or any one media platform... Indeed, many large mainstream media corporations regularly air hate speech, and it is prolific on the Internet. Hate speech takes various forms, from words advocating violence to those creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups. Cumulatively, hate speech creates an environment of hate and prejudice that legitimizes violence against its targets.

And there you have it. This is how perfectly legitimate political speech will be deemed "hate speech" -- stances like being against illegal immigration will be "creating a climate of hate towards Hispanics." Opposing affirmative action will be "creating a climate of hate towards blacks." Opposing gay "marriage" will be "creating a climate of hate towards homosexuals." And so on.

Thankfully, to date, American courts haven't taken a very friendly view of such an extension of "hate speech." Even judiciaries as liberal as the Ninth Circuit have maintained a quite [classically] liberal view of the First Amendment. Hopefully, the addition of Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court won't change this situation.

Posted by Hube at June 2, 2010 06:17 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.)

Hate speech takes various forms, from words advocating violence to those creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups.

Well under that criteria Delaware Liberal should be shut down for "hate speech"

Posted by: mike w. at June 4, 2010 11:52 AM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?