An idjit from Britain, where real free speech does not exist, whines about how “hate speech” isn’t really free speech.

So-called “hate speech” is still free speech. The so-called “rights” to “dignity” or “respect” would mandate that the state be used to force people to act, indirectly to eventually think, what the state finds acceptable.
“Hate speech,” then is simply speech that the state deems to be wrong. By labeling it “hate speech” and declaring that it is not “free speech”… presumably because people are free to say what the state allows them to say.
Speech, furthermore, is not violence against vulnerable minority groups.” Speech only crosses the line to violence when it is used as fighting words or an explicit incitement to violence. In other words, there must be actual harm directly caused by the speech in question.
But individuals such as that Brit twit seem to believe that speech that might influence people to think incorrect thoughts ought to be banned by the state because the state deems that such incorrect thinking might led to violence. By that measure, couldn’t we ban Marxist texts, the teaching of Critical Theory, or Justin Bieber?
Continue reading →