I don't know what we can say or what we can do to stanch what is slowly happening. I recall when the whole "hate speech" thing started. Once you've started, where the hell does it stop?
The answer is it doesn't stop. And it will steam roll its way forward taking down every thing that is PERCEIVED as hate speech. And then each day, the definition of Hate Speech will morph into something that will put even more limits as to what you say and where you say it.
For instance, will there be a time when we will be banned from saying things that will be defined as Hate Speech on the internet? What would cause it to be banned? Why everyone in the world can read what's on the internet. Any post or comment you might make can be read by someone in India, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.
Say something offensive of Muslims? Say something offensive of Indians? BLOCK IT. Maybe you'll be given a warning the first time. A hefty fine the second time. And finally jail time? Re-education camp? Torture?
Death? Could we see a time where Hate Speech will be regarded as a high crime worse than capital murder?
Things like this already happen in some countries. Could we see a time where, say, I say something offensive of the King of Thailand (a crime in Thailand) and be extradited to Thailand to be tried and convicted of Hate Speech against the country?
The reason why there is no limit on what we can call hate speech is because EVERYTHING WE SAY IS HATE SPEECH. Anything I might say is probably hated by someone or many someones throughout the world.
So, anyway, here is the article:
If it’s not Big Yogurt, it’s Big Oil or Big Somethingorother. Democrats have for years campaigned to overturn the First Amendment and ban political speech because of “fairness.” This position and its justifications all run on the very same ideological fuel. Believe it or not, though, allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than Donald Trump’s tweets mocking CNN.
It’s about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper like Los Angeles Times. She claims that hate speech should be banned because it has “been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.” Nearly every censor in the history of mankind has argued that speech should be curbed to balance out some harmful consequence. And nearly every censor in history, sooner or later, kept expanding the definition of harm until they shut down the rights of their political opponents.
Anyone who’s watched partisan groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who accuse civil rights lawyers of being in a “hate group,” understands where this goes.
Actually, you can see where it’s going by checking out Europe. Dismiss slippery slope arguments if you like, but in Germany, where “hate speech” has been banned, police have raided the homes of at least 36 people accused of posting “illegal content.” There is a proposed bill right now in Germany that would fine social media companies millions of dollars for failure to remove hate speech within 24 hours. When debates about immigration are at the forefront in Germany, the threat to abuse these laws is great.