Thread: The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 & the Racist Left's Attack on Free Speech

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 & the Racist Left's Attack on Free Speech

David Risselada 18 mins ago

In my recent article entitled "According to their own twisted logic," I highlighted the hypocrisy of a government that labels its own citizens terrorists by comparing their reasoning to the definition of "white privilege." In the article, I argued that because a universal truth must exist, the definition of "white privilege" must be backed by a universal truth that would apply to other situations. White privilege, if you remember, teaches us that because white people are the dominant race in America, and we have the power of the institutions to apply discriminatory practices, only we can be racist. If this is true, then because the government has a monopoly on applying the power of the institutions against the people, in order to silence and intimidate, then only the government can be terrorists. Seems like pretty simple logic to me.

However, we all know that the left has a way of making their rules apply to only those they disagree with. They don't apply to the left because the lefts intentions are usually more sincere, and implemented out of a sense of compassion, so they would argue. It remains unclear how accusing their own fellow citizens of being terrorists in order to scare them into silence is compassionate, but I digress.

In another stunning display of liberal hypocrisy, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) recently introduced S.2219- The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014, to the senate floor. This bill would essentially empower the National Telecommunications and Information Administration with scouring the internet and reporting anything they suspect may lead to the commission of a hate crime. This is extremely dangerous legislation as it could be used to silence anyone who opposes the lefts grand "utopian" vision for America.

As it stands right now, the only demographic group in America that is not in a protected status of some sort is the white male. This essentially means that anyone can say anything about you, or discriminate against you in any way, and there is no fear of repercussion because you are white and privileged.

The question that I have been asking for some time still remains unanswered: How does labeling a particular group as being "privileged," and having things they didn't fairly earn, not contribute to an atmosphere of hatred? By all rights, anyone who is teaching "white privilege" should be brought up on hate crime charges because it encourages minorities to believe that white people, particularly on the right, are racist and working to keep the black man down. We all know that these are lies, but it contributes to the development of anger and hatred while empowering minorities to commit acts of violence; therefore its proponents should be charged with a hate crime, according to their own logic.

At the same time, we have a government that is actively seeking to keep society as divided as possible by labeling anyone that speaks out against their tyranny as "terrorists." This is clearly motivated by a sense of "hatred," directed at an opposing ideology, because no one was calling the left wing inspired "Occupy Wall street" terrorists. Those people were clearly advocating for a socialist takeover of the country. Because their ideology was not only in line with the left, but also organized by the left, it didn't matter that they burned down buildings and threatened people's homes.

The left would have you believe that acts of violence, carried out while standing for socialist principles, like "wealth redistribution," are honorable and are being done in the pursuit of "social justice." Also, calling American citizens "terrorists" for standing for their constitutional rights contributes to an atmosphere of hatred as it encourages fear and uncertainty. It dehumanizes a group of people simply for having the courage to stand not only for their rights, but the rights of others as well. Many of these people are also veterans, so the government is encouraging the population to treat veterans with suspicion simply because they are afraid of being exposed by people willing to live up to the oath they took as a member of the U.S. military, and that is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In my opinion, you have to be a pretty hateful person to accuse American citizens, veterans in particular, as terrorists simply for disagreeing with your statism.

Perhaps passing S.2219 would not be such a bad thing after all. It would give people of honor and integrity, (words not often associated with today's politicians) the power and ability to stop the left wing agenda in its tracks because everything they do is motivated by hate. President Obama and his left-wing minions are deliberately trying to incite civil unrest by accusing the right of racism and extremism at every turn, this is surely motivated by a hatred of American values and he must be stopped. His politics of class envy and racial divisiveness have created more hatred and discontent than has existed for a long time. Every time he accuses the right of racism, it is done with the intent of causing more division and inflaming the passions of a misinformed population. It is President Obama and the left wing politicians that support this legislation as a way of hiding their socialist agenda that need to be charged with hate crimes. There I said it!

Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/ha...w40EEtOExEq.99

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/ha...w40EEtOExEq.99

Senator’s Proposal Would Put Government In Charge Of Defining, Finding And Prosecuting ‘Hate Speech’

April 30, 2014 by Ben Bullard

Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is behind a piece of legislation designed to hand government the power to codify, seek out and prosecute “hate speech” on TV, radio and online, proposing a bill he said last week would make “crystal clear that any recommendations must be consistent with the First Amendment’s free speech protections.”
Sounds paradoxical – and a host of critics agree.
Harvard law professor and heavily-quoted legal pundit Alan Dershowitz told the Boston Herald the bill’s intentions are impossible to reconcile with a Bill of Rights that placed the absolute freedom of speech at the top of the list of essential civil liberties.
“He’s not going to be able to come up with legislation that sufficiently protects the First Amendment,” said Dershowitz. “We always have to be able to respond to the racists and bigots, but not at the expense of the First Amendment.”
The Markey bill is based on a proposed government study Markey supported back in the early 1990s that, at the time, concluded that actual crimes that could be linked to so-called “hate speech” promulgated through media outlets amounted to a smattering of “largely anecdotal” incidents.
Nevertheless, Markey’s bill – which is co-sponsored in the House by Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) – aims to put the Department of Justice and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in charge of defining hate speech and of recommending to Congress which Federal agency, or agencies, should be tasked with trolling the Internet and scanning radio talk shows for prosecutable offenses.
Civil liberties attorney Harvey A. Silvergate told the Boston Herald that’s simply a ludicrous idea – but he and other Bill of Rights advocates warn that the public should not dismiss the threat of such proposals becoming law just because they sound silly.
“This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly. It is dangerous,” he said. “It is not up to Senator Markey, nor to the federal government, to define for a free people what speech is, and is not, acceptable.”

http://personalliberty.com/senators-...g-hate-speech/