February 15th, 2007

Hate Speech

As predicted previously, the Democrat-controlled Congress is considering “hate crime” legislation. H.R. 254, or the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 is yet another attempt to establish an Orwellian thought police of sorts. What is touted strictly as “hate crime” in this legislation is simply a disguised springboard for suppressing all “hate speech”, a vague enough term to throw anybody into a state of self-censorship and fear.

The federal government is once again attempting to hoard power and control the lives of individual citizens. The Constitution expressly prohibited certain powers from the federal government, allotting it those it now enjoys (well, the only ones is should legally enjoy), leaving all other unassigned powers to the states.

The WorldNetDaily article makes an interesting point on this subject:

However, Pike said the authors of the new legislation have been clever, inserting in the proposal assertions that because five states do not have hate laws, the federal government has “no choice” but to “enhance federal enforcement of hate crimes.” That includes new ranks of federal agents to address the “serious national problem” that exists.

Worse yet, there are some key phrases that open doors wide that many people don’t want opened. For example, Pike said, the bill is to “prevent and respond to alleged violations,” meaning “the government does not even have to wait until a hate crime has been committed but may act pre-emptively to ‘prevent’ crime.”

Minority report, anyone? You’re scared of crime now, just wait until we have pre-crime.

Such legislation is a stepping stone for further federal involvement in restricting whatever is deemed by the authority as “hate speech” or a “hate crime”. Basically, if you say anything that those in authority deem inexcusable or offensive, it’s “hate”. Free speech, once a liberty guaranteed every U.S. citizen, has been thrown out the window.

Case in point: The phrase “natural family” is apparently offensive to gays, and a usage of this term would no doubt be considered by some (were H.R. 254 passed) as “hate”. In a world of increased PC, your words and actions may increasingly be considered as “hate” and therefore punishable by law under federal legislation.

I therefore take this opportunity (perhaps one of my last, should this legislation see the light of day) to defend so-called natural families, oppose homosexuality (yes, as a sin), advocate against abortion (in all but a select few circumstances), and promote all other social establishments and practices in harmony with divine law and mandate.

Sue me.

Read quotes about “liberty” on Quoty

5 Responses to “Hate Speech”

  1. Connor
    February 16, 2007 at 12:34 am #

    “Hate speech” can also be a bad career move. Sheesh.

  2. Jeff
    February 16, 2007 at 11:35 pm #

    So, do you not believe that the NBA, a private business, has the right to censure their employee in any way they see fit?

    I believe that “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn’t protect someone from being punished by a private entity that employs them for particularly insidious remarks. I applaud the NBA for taking a principled stand, but I oppose the bill that has been proposed because it tramples on the First Amendment.

    Do you think that Hardaway saying that he hates gay people and that they shouldn’t be allowed in the US or in the world is acceptable? Your reaction to it says that you do. If so, how does that fit with President Hinckley’s charge to love our gay brothers and sisters. I don’t find your remarks particularly bad (although we won’t find much agreement on the issue of gay rights), but Hardaway’s were terrible, and you’re defending them. Sheesh.

  3. Connor
    February 17, 2007 at 12:00 am #

    Sheesh, sheesh, sheesh. :)

    So, do you not believe that the NBA, a private business, has the right to censure their employee in any way they see fit?

    Of course they have the right to “censure” their employees, but not in any way they see fit. They can’t force him to hold his breath for ten minutes or run a marathon. Clearly there are guidelines for what an employer can and cannot do. Wrongful termination lawsuits come about because of this exact issue. I do agree that the NBA should be able to do with their employees as they see fit (within reason), I simply aimed to point out that doing so can be a bad career move, as employers (pushing for tolerance and PC extremism) can reprimand or terminate you based on expressed personal opinions that in no way affect your ability to perform on the job.

    Do you think that Hardaway saying that he hates gay people and that they shouldn’t be allowed in the US or in the world is acceptable?

    In this context of this discussion, yes. The First Amendment gives Hardaway just that opportunity, does it not?

    Your reaction to it says that you do.

    10 words is hardly a “reaction”. I simply included a link to the story, citing it as a potentially detrimental career move. Even tacking the word “sheesh” on the end doesn’t to justice to what my reaction might fully be. :)

    …how does that fit with President Hinckley’s charge to love our gay brothers and sisters.

    This discussion is not about the content of Hardaway’s words. It’s not even about Hardaway, as that was just a link I referenced in one of the comments. The post itself is about the impact this legislation would have on free speech, censorship, and individual liberties.

    Sure, I disagree with Hardaway’s words. I disagree with some of yours, occasionally. So what? Does that mean your employer should fire you because there are people out there who don’t like what you have to say? Should I call up your ISP and demand your blog be deleted because I don’t like what you have to say?

    Hardaway’s [words] were terrible, and you’re defending them.

    As mentioned already, I’m not defending them whatsoever. When Hardaway said that “[homosexuality] shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States,” is that considered any more offensive or atrocious than what we might hear over the pulpit?

    The Church’s stand on homosexual relations provides another arena where we offend the devil. I expect that the statement of the First Presidency and the Twelve against homosexual marriages will continue to be assaulted. (James E. Faust, “Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,” Ensign, Sep 1995, 2)

    or:

    Pornography, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are permitted and practiced in the world today to such an extent that we are truly following the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is too much corruption in the world. (N. Eldon Tanner, “Why Is My Boy Wandering Tonight?,” Ensign, Nov 1974, 84)

    or

    We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

    It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.

    There is today a strong clamor to make such practices legal by passing legislation. Some would also legislate to legalize prostitution. They have legalized abortion, seeking to remove from this heinous crime the stigma of sin.

    We do not hesitate to tell the world that the cure for these evils is not in surrender. (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Foundations of Righteousness,” Ensign, Nov 1977, 4)

    Though I could go on, I’ll stop there since this thread isn’t about homosexuality. I simply point out these quotes because in a sense, Prophets of God have been saying the same things for millennia. Should they be benched as well?

    What would happen to the Church politically/economically/socially if such legislation were past, and our leaders (Prophets of the Lord, no less!) were targeted and punished for their words? Guess it wouldn’t be the first time

  4. Jeff
    February 17, 2007 at 12:28 am #

    In this context of this discussion, yes. The First Amendment gives Hardaway just that opportunity, does it not?

    Yes, it does, but that’s not what I was asking.

    10 words is hardly a “reaction”.

    Fair enough. I just thought it was a strange way of defending your position.

    Sure, I disagree with Hardaway’s words.

    I’m glad.

    I disagree with some of yours, occasionally. So what? Does that mean your employer should fire you because there are people out there who don’t like what you have to say?

    That depends on what I say. If I said that high school students were filthy little maggots who had nothing to contribute to this world, so they shouldn’t be here, I’d expect to be fired, especially if I said it in public. Since my job is to teach high school students, those words would be particularly detrimental to my ability to teach. As would it be if I said I hated gay people and had a gay student (which I have had, btw).

    When Hardaway said that “[homosexuality] shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States,” is that considered any more offensive or atrocious than what we might hear over the pulpit?

    I actually believe that it is. Even though the Church is against homosexuality, they are always careful to say that they don’t hate the person or wish them ill. Hardaway makes no such qualifying statement. Maybe I’m debating a matter of semantics, but I think there is a difference.

    Prophets of God have been saying the same things for millennia. Should they be benched as well?

    No, and they haven’t been saying it the same way Hardaway did. Furthermore, they aren’t employed by a private entity, so no one has the right to “bench” them. Their speech is protected by the Constitution, and there isn’t a private entity that they answer to. They’re in the clear.

    What would happen to the Church politically/economically/socially if such legislation were past, and our leaders (Prophets of the Lord, no less!) were targeted and punished for their words?

    It would be bad. I agree with you that the bill is bad; however, I don’t think the welfare of a church should be the concern of the congress. That being said, protecting the First Amendment definitely should be their concern, which is why this bill is bad.

  5. Michael L. Mc Kee
    February 17, 2007 at 6:41 pm #

    I tend to become fearfully concerned when I attempt to participate in these discussions because it is not my desire, in any way, to offend, but there are times when I see no other course of action.

    This legislation, and the real intent behind it has absolutely nothing to do with so-called “hate speech.” It has everything to do with “control,” period.

    Consider, if you will, what we are doing in the Church when we send our young men and women out into the world to proclaim the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. The very message itself is “offensive’ to some. The time is coming, and not in the too distant future, when we are not going to be able to send our Missionaries out to proselyte in the United States, period. Of course, this will also mean that the remainder of the world will follow our lead if they aren’t already keeping us from so doing.

    It is time to start realizing that the adversary is coming into his greatest period of control because he has many willing, and able pawns who blindly go about the earth following after his gospel plan.

    At least one of the current participants in this topic of conversation is aware that I am promoting Mitt Romney for President of the United State of America. BTW, I do not intend to waste my time discussing with others why I should consider an alternative course. I merely wish to make a point about the level of hateful conversations running rampant due to Mitt being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    Brothers, and sisters we are about to become the most hated group of people in this country based on the type of words, and speech I witness many times each day. The Internet has opened the doors for everyone to offer his opinion on blog sites, and that is a good thing, but of course Lucifer has his power also. Of course, many of these sites actually do not reach a wide audience, but I am afraid the media is fanning the flames which they will do relentlessly. Most of the difficulty is coming from the so-called Evangelicals who do not believe we are Christian, and the rhetoric is becoming more hateful every day. BTW, this type of speech will not be considered hate speech by the powers behind the scenes as at serves their ultimate purpose of creating a New World Order free of Christian thought, and conservative ideas.

    If it is not apparent to some in the Church who do not venture out of their comfort zones that we are going to be tested concerning our allegiance to Christ by the adversarial minions being brought together at this time, I am afraid for you. The cleansing process is under way at this very moment, and I pray we will awaken from our complacent slumber before it is everlastingly too late.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.