If You Want to Criminalize "Hate Speech" Begin by Outlawing Liberal "Opinions"

One of the most egregious examples of the hostility toward liberty by those on the left is the desire to criminalize so-called ‘hate speech’.  Here, in the "Land of the Free," such attempts at prior restraint based upon content are generally most successful on college campuses, and places like California that are bastions of leftist/progressivist ideology.

This attempted criminalization of 'hate speech' is amusing in terms of its blatant hypocrisy.  Attempts to outlaw hate speech nearly always come from the left, yet it is also well documented that the most flagrant use of hate speech emanates from the left.  Before we go further, however, I think it would be eminently helpful to define hate speech.  In the interests of objectivity, let us agree that hate speech is “speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, or bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.”  Bigoted can be defined as "blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others".  That being said, when was the last time you heard a mainstream personality on the right seriously engage in ‘hate speech’?

We hear such disparaging speech from the left all the time.  Whether it emanates from has-been celebrities like Janeane Garofalo, Rosie O'Donnell, Danny Glover, or Sean Penn in one of their frequent and famous tirades slandering the same fans that used to pay their salaries, or supposedly ‘mainstream’ media personalities like Contessa Brewer tarring conservatives with the accusation of racism or CNN anchor Anderson Cooper saying “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging,” the leftists in front of the cameras seem to have no sense of professionalism or decorum. If Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh had made statements on the air that were even a fraction so offensive, the liberal media would have been up in arms calling for the FCC to shut down their programs. Even the Leftist-in-Chief Obama is not immune to slanderous commentary against his own citizens by calling  them “teabaggers” or complaining how “they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment”.  When was the last time you heard of a Republican president (or presidential candidate) making such a disparaging and contemptuous statement?

Such ad hominem attacks go beyond accusations of racism or perverse sexual activity.  These attacks accuse the non-left-leaning of being “intolerant,” “hateful,” “mean-spirited,” “homophobic,” “xenophobic,” “misogynistic,” “greedy,” “unpatriotic,” or some variation of “backward,” “ignorant,” or “unenlightened.”  When you have the Speaker of the House accusing her own constituents of being “unpatriotic” for supporting traditional American values (e.g. free markets, limited government, self-sufficiency, etc.), language has been turned on its head.  Far worse, however, is the frequency with which such leftist opinions encourage, condone, or sanction violence against those with whom the progressives disagree.  To say that President Bush should be tried for war crimes, while harsh, is a legitimate statement of opinion.  When Air America Radio personality Randi Rhodes repeatedly suggests that the answer is to assassinate the POTUS, the opinion has crossed the line to border on the criminal.  When illegal aliens threaten to murder whites unless they are granted amnesty, the speech has become intolerable and is no longer protected. When SEIU union members verbally threaten and physically intimidate peaceful protesters over disagreements regarding public policy, the union needs to be disbanded.

Even supposedly apolitical institutions like the Miss USA competition are not immune to the virulence of leftist slander.  Perez Hilton a Miss USA judge and gossip blogger, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean about her stance on same-sex marriage.  He then proceeded to call her a "stupid b***h" in a video tirade he aired on his blog due to his rabid dislike of her answer to the question that he, himself, asked.  To say you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is to simply state an opinion.  To answer honestly when asked a question is merely courteous.  To engage in such name-calling (particularly because you did not like the answer you received) is churlish.  Strangely enough, the silence of the feminists on this issue was deafening.  As it was when Playboy published Guy Cimbalo's enlightening article about conservative women he would like to rape.  Apparently "all men are mysogynists and rapists" unless they are leftists and actually admit to wanting to abuse and rape women.  Also, apparently, strong women are a good thing unless they fail to toe the leftist/progressive line.

The most recent case of hate speech from the left is from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), who has accused supporters of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law of having “ties to white supremacy groups.”  According to Sanchez "It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics," in spite of the fact that the law has majority support both within Arizona and within the United States as a whole.  How is 60% favorable support “not mainstream”? 

To expect people to obey the law (when it has been legitimately enacted and is constitutionally valid) is reasonable.  To label people as racist for holding such expectations is beyond absurd.  Ms. Sanchez's behaviour is irresponsible, unprofessional, unconscionable, and completely in keeping with the finest traditions of the left.  I can not help but wonder whether Ms. Sanchez expects the public to abide by the laws she passes in her role as a U.S. Representative.  If so, I find her unmitigated hypocrisy appalling.  If not, I can only wonder what she sees as being her role and purpose as a legislator.

If you look at the issue objectively, you will see that the left really does not have a problem with speech that is ‘hateful’ or malicious.  What the left really has a problem with is speech that supports policies or conveys information with which they disagree.  The combination of banning speech that the left finds disagreeable along with vicious ad hominem attacks against political opponents allows the left to dominate the political discourse by silencing the opposition.  By monopolizing the realm of ideas, the left can control the direction of public policy.  The problem is that we have allowed the political left to dominate the language of political discourse.  By “we”, I mean all decent people who are more interested in finding substantive solutions to problems than we are in advancing a particular political agenda.

We have stronger arguments than the leftists, and we have the facts on our side.  When we say “concealed-carry laws save lives, and we have the statistics to prove it,” leftists say “you are a paranoid, gun-toting redneck.”  When we say “bilingual education keeps immigrants poor by making it harder for them to assimilate into our society and economy,” leftists respond with “you are a xenophobic racist.”  When we say “actual global temperatures have been cooling over the last few years,” leftists parrot “you are a global-warming denier.”  Such responses are juvenile and idiotic (notice I said 'responses', not 'people').  The only way we can fail to win such debates is by allowing ourselves to be shamed or cowed into silence by such slanderous accusations.

When leftists call us names, we need to fight back by forcing them to address the issues.  When we say “the Federal healthcare mandate is unconstitutional,” and the leftists reply with “you are racists,” we need to ignore the accusation and force them to prove us wrong on the issues.  Take back our language and rejoin the political discourse.  It does not matter if you are black or white, male or female, straight or gay.  Stick to the issues and stick to the facts, and whatever you do, DO NOT allow the left to cow you into silence, no matter what.