The First Amendment Should Never Protect HatredThere is more, if you can stomach it.
"One of the most admirable things about Europe is that most (if not all) of the right-wing rhetoric that you hear in the US is explicitly against the law there. For example, attempting to link Islam with terrorism, saying that gay marriage isn’t really marriage, or saying that trans women aren’t really women would get you charged with discrimination and/or incitement to hatred. Numerous European public figures have been charged with hate crimes for implying that large-scale immigration is connected to higher crime. In fact, a politician in Sweden was prosecuted for hate crimes for posting statistics about immigrant crime on Facebook. Assaults on the human dignity of Muslims are simply not tolerated in Europe, and Europe cracks down hard on any attempts to incite hatred against Muslims. In a notable example, a woman in Austria was convicted of a hate crime for suggesting that the Islamic Prophet Muhammed was a pedophile. Recently, a man in Sweden was charged with incitement to ethnic hatred for wearing a T-shirt saying “Islam is the devil.” Nobody in Europe believes that these laws interfere with their sacred, guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Rather, these laws protect freedom of speech by ensuring that it is used responsibly and for the purposes of good.
In the US, however, no such laws exist. Right-wing hatemongers like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, and Sarah Palin (to name just a few) are allowed to freely incite hatred and violence, oppose human rights, and undermine progress with impunity. When people like this are allowed to sway public opinion against the common good, it can have disastrous consequences. Just ask the millions of people killed due to wars pushed by right-wingers, even though propaganda for war is illegal under international human rights law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mandates that all countries outlaw propaganda for war)."
Those who designate certain speech as "Hate Speech" are themselves indulging their own hatred - hatred of dissent, hatred of a universe containing people who are not like themselves, hatred of the Other. The concept of punishing Hate Speech is purely a totalitarian tactic for suppression of classes they do not like. It is identity war, class war on those not like Tanya Cohen.
Tanya claims to be a "human rights activist", who doesn't like free speech or those who use it. Those Others must be suppressed and their rights removed. In her utopia, Tanya will determine how that is to be done.
9 comments:
Two funnies:
(1) "... their sacred, guaranteed right to freedom of speech."
Sacred: SACRED on the basis of what God or religion?!? Guaranteed: GUARANTEED by what God or religion?!?
(2) "Just ask the millions of people killed ..."
Uh, how, Ms. Tanya, do you propose to "ask" dead people ANYTHING, especially in light of your belief in non-existence after physical death?!? Non-existent dead men (and women) tell no tales. . .
Sorry, it's not worth my time looking at the entire rant about "protecting" free speech by abolishing it. WTF?!?
Robert Coble: Naturally, it protects the free speech of Tanya Cohen by abolishing the free speech of others that could otherwise pose a threat to the free speech of Tanya Cohen, which is perfectly fine by typical relativist morals.
Atrocious, like always.
(ReCaptcha: please prove that you're not a robot; type the text: "Rua". "R u a robot?" :D)
She's bat-crap crazy if she isn't a witty satirist, but unfortunately, eve if it is satire, the writing is prophetic of the kind of up and coming fascist that are bubbling to the top of Western governments.
As I read this, I had to chuckle and think about things like movie speech codes and the ban on pornography that the same lefties work tirelessly to overturn in the name of "free speech". I guess speech codes are only good when it is their speech codes and not "the others'" speech codes.
"Just ask the millions of people killed due to wars pushed by right-wingers"
I'm wondering which wars those were. Let's see -- WWII? FDR was a Democrat. Vietnam? Started under Kennedy. That leaves the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan, for which "millions killed" is just a bit of a stretch. But why interrupt a good rant to google up pesky facts that might not support the narrative?
"even though propaganda for war is illegal under international human rights law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mandates that all countries outlaw propaganda for war)."
This from further down her rant:
"Countries like the UK ... allow legitimate freedom of expression while banning bigots, hatemongers, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, pro-pedophile groups, terrorist sympathizers, harmful media, Holocaust deniers, pick-up artists, climate change deniers, and other forms of expression which damage society and social cohesion."
By the time one gets to the end of that list, one's left wondering what's left besides shopping lists and birthday cards? (Or are birthday cards age-ist?)
"Pick-up artists"? Next time you're pub-crawling in the East End, be sure not to compliment a woman's appearance. You'll probably wind up in jail charged with damaging social cohesion.
I don't know if that claim about the UK is true, but if it were, it might explain why no one would turn in the "asian" child rapists: the stated reason was fear of being charged with racism. When speech is considered a worse human violation than rape, the morally inverted AtheoLeftists have won.
BTW, if you have the stomach for it, take a look at her earlier article, in which she actually speaks approvingly of state surveillance and "re-education centers".
And then has the chutzpah (yes, I'm using Yiddish, so Ms. Cohen can understand) to claim to be the anti-Orwellian one in the discussion.
OK, "Tonya Cohen" is not a real person. She cannot possibly be. She is a satirist writing parody. In addition to advocating re-education camps, she also approves of laws declaring people guilty unless proven innocent:
"Australia has also proposed legislation (the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill) which declares people automatically guilty of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating minorities unless they can prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt."
It's simply not possible a real, live human being could be THIS stupid. The only possible conclusion is that she is a blog-troll trying to rile the masses.
Ah! I've sussed it! Tonya Cohen is a sock puppet for Joshua Goldberg. Read Goldberg's articles at the same site and you'll notice both he and Cohen cite all the same examples -- from the Australian legislation to Japanese hysteria right down to exactly the same George Orwell quote. The synchronicity is too coincidental to be chance. Cohen is simply a sock puppet into the mouth of which Goldberg has placed all the most outrageous assertions he's dug up. He's playing her as parody. And well-done it is, too.
Even both surnames are Jewish. And why not? They're the same person.
Post a Comment