| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Mike S. Adams hits the nail on the head again.
When, in class one day, a student said that “hate speech” was not free speech, I asked him the following: “Can you even define hate speech?” After a long silence, I assured him that I, too, was unable to define hate speech. But, since then, I think I have come up with a suitable definition that helps me understand both the failure of speech codes and the success of Islamic terrorism.[...]
Everything was put in proper perspective when a liberal sociologist properly characterized references to “civility” in higher education as intentional efforts to avoid substantive discussions. In other words, he seemed to be generalizing beyond DePaolo to all of those who play the “civility card.” I resisted the temptation to talk about sociologists who play the racism card and feminists who play the sexism card.
But I recognized immediately the connection between the sociologist’s observation and the campus speech code movement, which seeks to ban “hate speech.” And, after letting his words sink in, I formed this new definition of hate speech:
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.
Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: 1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and 2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.
Instances of the former are numerous in the society-at-large. For example, when a member of the KKK says “I may not be much, but at least I’m not a nigger” there is really no way to respond intelligently. Nor is there much hope that any response will be understood and appreciated by someone ignorant enough to make such a remark. So the speech can be properly characterized as hate speech.
Instances of the latter are numerous in academia. For example, three years ago this week, I wrote a piece explaining how speech codes produce a form of reverse Darwinism. I argued that only those who are emotionally unfit are likely to become uncomfortable simply by hearing a contrary point of view. I argued further that they are indeed quite emotionally unfit if they actually remain upset long enough to file a complaint aimed at enforcing a speech code.
Of course, after I wrote my piece a feminist started crying and went to the feminist (now former) chair who, in turn, gave me a lecture about civility. In other words, the feminists weren’t smart enough to address the substance of my remarks. Shocking, isn’t it?
Hence, I accurately predicted that the codes seek to weed out the speech of the emotionally stable majority - those who do not cry at work - through the vehicle of complaints filed by the emotionally unstable - those who cry at work but never file complaints directed towards the suppression of their own views.
The similarity between the two principal forms of hate speech is obvious:
They both induce anger in the listener, regardless of whether the speaker expressed his view with any feeling of hatred or animosity.
And this leads to an understanding (see bold sentence below) of the apparent hypocrisy of gays and feminists who a) cry “hate speech” (while actually crying in some cases) against conservatives who do not wish to kill gays and feminists, and b) tolerate “hate speech” by Islamic fascists who really do wish to kill gays and feminists.
Islamic advocacy of violence is not classified as “hate speech” because it induces fear, not anger.
This, of course, explains the failure of speech codes (and probably multi-culturalism in general). Since the enforcement of the codes relies largely on the emotional reaction of the listener rather than the content of the speech, the codes create insurmountable problems within both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
And, of course, it explains the success of Islamic terrorism. It is indeed a strategy that induces fear in an effort to destroy the proper function of the First Amendment through threats and intimidation too serious to simply ignore.
But, of course, this is not as it should be. And I intend to offer a solution to the problem when I speak during Islamic Fascism Awareness Week. Like true First Amendment terrorists, some Muslims are trying to prevent the week’s events from happening. But the true American patriots who outnumber them will not be deterred. They simply will not provide the fear necessary for the survival of their tyranny and the destruction of our precious liberty.
Dr. Adams’ speech will take place at Clemson University on Thursday, October 25th. It will begin at 7 p.m. in Room 100 of Hunter Hall. Anyone in the audience who does not want to risk being shot should wear an orange cap.
Posted by Robert at October 22, 2007 7:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Banning hate speech decapitates equal dialog and engenders Fictive Reality.
Alternately, banning hate crime violates the concept of equal justice before the law, and overturns the Constitution
Hillary Clinton, a routine alum of Yale Law -- where they don't give a damn about the Constitution -- promises to beef up hate crime laws. This in turn will lead to more Fictive Reality, and greater success for Marxists and their Moslem brethern.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 22, 2007 7:58 AM
islamofascists awareness week is open to everyone? you dont have to be an enrolled student to attend the meetings?
plus why doesn't the web site include the address of where exactly the campus is located etc? apart from that i'm there!
and i'm not gonna be wearing an orange cap. i will be wearing my St George knight t-shirt, the one of him cutting the head of the islamic dragon, well its not really the head of a dragon but shows st. george cutting the head off of abu hamza, with a beast like dragon body.
is that a hate act?
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at October 22, 2007 8:25 AM
How lucid, how intelligent, and consequently, how infuriating to so many who deserve to be infuriated.
Posted by: Hugh at October 22, 2007 8:35 AM
a british vicar was "visited" by uk police for a "hate crime".
"Last night the priest said his 'offending' remarks had concerned Shabina Begum, who, represented by Cherie Blair QC, claimed unsuccessfully that it was her human right to be allowed to wear her jilbab, a loose gown, in class.
After hearing an interview with the girl, Mr Hayes suggested in his internet bulletin to his parishioners that it was never possible to convince anyone by argument in matters of religion.
"My point was that you have to demonstrate what it means to be Christian through your actions," he said."
he was reported by "someone" in his congregation, "stasi" style.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at October 22, 2007 8:41 AM
Hate speech is all about context.
If I walk into a Jewish summer camp and raise a salute with "Heil Hitler!", the children and parents would be shocked, because it is clearly hate speech.
But if I did the same at a neo-Nazi summer camp, they'd all think I'm so cool, and not hate speech.
If I did this in a Palestinian camp, raise my arm in Hitler salute but said nothing, they wouldn't be shocked. They do it. But if I did saying "God Bless America!" they'd think it's hate speech.
It gets more interesting with "assallaam aleikum". If this is said to a group of abused women who just had their husbands murdered, children sold into slavery, and themselves raped as war booty, they may find this call to 'god's peace' not only insulting but truly hate speech, while the men saying it to each other think themselves virtuous in Allah. The same greeting to a groups of American sailors rotting in some Islamic prison while held for ransom would not take kindly to this kind of 'god's peace' either. Hate speech.
So it's all in context, as to how words are used. Some hate speech is done on purpose, like CAIR and company wanting to replace the US Constitution with Sharia. To them, it's a brilliant and virtuous idea, for Allah. To me it is hate speech. What's it to you? Do you mind losing your freedoms to slavery? Hate speech, for even asking?
When little kids we used to taunt each other by calling each other names, cutting each other up until somebody gave up. The default when you ran out of names was to say "I know you are, so what am I?" It's a silly response, but it illustrates that hate speech is silly, and not a crime if the ones doing it say it to each other. What is hate speech is to call for the erradication of another country, or a people, like Israel, that's hate speech.
Islam is a coercive violent domineering tribal cult parading as religion which is full of hate speech. Why doesn't the multicluturalist relativism of everybody's cultural context being equal address all the hatred coming out of Islamic lips and condemn them? Because in their context, the hate coming out of Islam's vitriolic diatribe is not hateful to them, so it's not hate speech. What we say to point out this hatred directed at us, that is more threatening to the multiculturalists because it asserts our rights to our freedoms. In their world, our defense of our inalienable rights is hateful, because we're supposed to obediently and passively accept their world view, which includes Islam as equal to the other religions. Therefore, they are more threatened by our defense of our freedoms, and what we say or do in such self defense to them is hate speech. The fact that the Islamists are killing us and cutting off heads, and threatening to continue until we all submit to their world view is of no concern, because that hate speech is taken in context, that we are all to be subdued.
"I know you are, so what am I?" How do you reason with the unreasonable, if anything you say to counter their attack, in your defense of freedom, is hate speech? Are we supposed to simply stay quiet and obedient while they cut us up? No, we will not be silenced by them, or anyone, if our freedoms are at risk.
at October 22, 2007 8:57 AM
If I silently in my heart curse the day Muhammad was born, is that now going to be considered "Hate Thought" and is it also going to be called "Double Ungood Thought"?
Posted by: senor doeboy at October 22, 2007 9:09 AM
Hate speech is what imams do in the mosques every Friday. Inspiration for their hate speaches comes from the cowran. "Kill the infidel" , "behead those who insult islam" seems like pretty hateful speech to me.
Posted by: j_not_a at October 22, 2007 9:16 AM
Hate speech is invented by the cowards whose only thought is 'don't hurt me!'.
How to overcome cowardice? Thru training.
Exercise, learn martial art, buy a gun and learn to shoot bulls eye, learn survival and lots more - there are many ways to overcome fear.
Actually, people who are not afraid are free people. The thought 'don't hurt me' oppresses many more people in the world than all the oppressive regimes altogether.
at October 22, 2007 10:59 AM
'Islamic advocacy of violence is not classified as “hate speech” because it induces fear, not anger.'
Brilliantly perceptive... this also explains the Dhimmitude of MSM and self appointed liberals, who keep looking for ways to justify the unjustness of islam and jehad by attacking their own institutions and civil apparatus in an all too common and exasperating version of Stockholm Syndrome.
at October 22, 2007 11:11 AM
The hate is in the koran.
Loved the response of the papacy to the imams letter: the precepts in your koran are not open to discussion so there can be no fruitful dialogue.
Am not a catholic but ya gotta love these people who are great allies.
Let the discussions begin.
Posted by: dgene at October 22, 2007 11:49 AM
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.This is fascinating: define speech according to the reaction of the listener, as opposed to the content and intent of the speaker. That way, if the listeners happen to be mature, intelligent infidels who don't respond violently by burning mosques, qurans, Muslim flags, et al, then the speech is not hate speech. However, when the listeners happen to be Mohammedans like Kashmir Rage Boy who repond by burning Western flags and symbols, that then becomes hate speech.
I'm generally opposed to the concept of hate-speech and hate-crimes existing, but even with that, I doubt whether the original inventors of this concept intended its definition to be as spelt above.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 22, 2007 12:49 PM
'Islamic advocacy of violence is not classified as “hate speech” because it induces fear, not anger.'
Not in me. I am not afraid, but I am plenty pzzed off. 'Hate speech', is a brain twister, untwisted by this excellent analysis. Since I do not fear Islam, but am angry at it, I suppose it is impossible for me to indulge in 'Hate speech', toward Islam...
So next time someone accuses you of 'hate speech', just tell them that you are not afraid, just angry.
They won't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, but it will really throw them off...
at October 22, 2007 12:59 PM
Can anyone tell me when it became such an appalling thoughtcrime to 'hate' something? It's ludicrous - I was mulling this over whilst reading the 'acceptable use of the internet' policy at a workplace I visited recently, where, obviously, 'hate sites' featured prominently in the list of places not to go.
So, I'm no allowed to surf ihatestarbucks.com, or ihatestrawberryjelly.com? They are upfront about it, they are hate sites, see, it's even in the domain name! oh, not that sort of hate. If I were to look at ihatenazis.com, how about that? Oh, that's alright is it?
If I want to hate something, I'm going to go right ahead and hate it - I hate injustice and oppression, slavery, both mental and physical, and the subjugation of women. I guess for all of those reasons I also hate Islam as a belief system. Presumably the thought police will be right along to re-educate me sometime soon.
Posted by: thomas ato at October 22, 2007 1:01 PM
Orange cap?
I'm drawing a blank on that reference. Can anyone help me out?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: templar at October 22, 2007 1:01 PM
Ok! Am I the only one that didn't understand this article?
Posted by: allat at October 22, 2007 1:14 PM
templar,
a joking reference to hunting (i the US, hunters are encoraged to wear bright orange/dazzle colored wear to avoid being inadvertantly shot by fellow hunters by mistake).
In themean time, loling @ topic (well put Mr Adams!)
just more proof of the islami-commie unholy alliance in wacko-demia today (aka, political correctness)- it infests every facet of daily life now.
(yes, infestation, aka, a disease)
at October 22, 2007 1:27 PM
Hate speech should be defined as speech that actually causes fear or induces someone to commit a physical crime. Nowadays, the English language is so screwed up, that not many words are properly defined. We are left with hate speech being defined simply because real hate speech prevents people from filing complaints through fear.
To me, if hate speech is anything that causes anger whether or not there can be an intelligent response is wrong. Then we are reduced to speaking in a manner to ensure that no one is offended. A great athlete might be offended by statements saying that a lefthander cannot be a thirdbaseman. It is in fact prejudicial without giving lefthanders the chance to prove with tryouts that lefthanders really cannot play thirdbase. Army generals once said that blacks did not have the mental ability to fly fighter airplanes; the Tuskegee trained pilots were given the chance to prove the statement wrong. If insulting someone by merely repeating old mythology is punishable, then reasonable people have lost the debate, the war, and civilization.
In reply to a comment not long ago, I incorrectly wrote that someone criticized someone else instead of properly saying that they merely disagreed. I was immediately informed of this mistake as if I had let a resounding belch during prayer at a funeral. If people are forced to parse their words so as not to insult anybody or make a simple mistake, meaningful discourse will be lost.
So far, (knock on wood and cross fingers) the Feds have not tried to make a law defining hate speech. All of the so called hate crime laws are laws involving actual physical offenses. A search of this site, http://thomas.loc.gov/, did not find one entry with "hate speech."
Posted by: Pelayo at October 22, 2007 1:30 PM
Ok! I read it again. Got it!
"Islamic advocacy of violence is not classified as “hate speech” because it induces fear, not anger>"
As for me, islamic advocary induces anger NOT fear. Anger and frustation - because for every logical and legal path, the islamics have a counter argument. They always return to chip away - never giving up. Chipping at the weakest point - the weakest link. Reminds me of that toy clown that one pushes away, and it comes right back up.
Like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87941120@N00/247478251/
The call us kaffirs, & unbelievers.
We should start calling them "Bozos" - "clowns " and "Losers."
Really make them angry. He, He.
Posted by: allat at October 22, 2007 1:32 PM
Hate speech, has always existed. The dictionary definition of 'hate' is 'intense dislike'.
It is always been acceptable to hate certain things. Kids hate cod liver oil. Some people actually do hate strawberry ice cream. Bush Sr hated certain vegetables. When people hate, there is usually a good reason for it. When there is not, hate becomes 'irrational' hate. Hate speech crimes, and accusations, are in themselves examples of irrational hate. Because, as pointed out in the article, the accuser does not know, or recognize, the difference between anger and fear, or rationality versus irrationality. This does not say much for the accuser other than that they have an agenda. I hate Islam (intensely dislike), for reasons that are well known, and agreed upon by the people on this forum and others. There is nothing 'irrational' about it because it is based on solid fact. I don't hate individual muslims unless their behavior dictates it. So while I say many negative things about Islam, I am not guilty of hate speech.
If anyone is guilty of hate speech, it is liberals in regard to Bush. They hate him with a passion, leading to the tag 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'.
Since their emotions are all wrapped up in it, and they can't prove many allegations, they have long ago become irrational.
Many of them are the same people accusing others of 'hate speech'. There is only one word that fits them...hypocrites...
at October 22, 2007 1:53 PM
Simpler definition on hate speech, if said by a,
white person = hate speech
muslim = out of context
see, it's simple.
Posted by: Ian at October 22, 2007 3:18 PM
templar & jcom972
actually, the revolutionary youth communist party are urging anyone against islamofascist week to wear orange, in reference to guatanamo.
im heading over to the atlanta islamo fascist event adn i will be distrubuting flyers detailing communist genoicde, which some experts belive to be in the 90 million range. i'm also taking my pro video camera to film the communists as i hand out my flyers.
youtube here i come!
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at October 22, 2007 4:03 PM
In trying to differentiate between fear and anger Adams has missed the main point here - that of perceived victim and oppressor.
Hate speech is speech which people on their version of the moral high ground, that is, being oppressed victims or the people who claim to speak for them, regard as as hurtful or upsetting. Facts are irrelevant, the speech just has to injure feelings up to and including the production of violence, whether verbal, physical or institutional.
By this definition hate speech cannot emanate from an oppressed victim or an oppressed victim's representative. Mari Matsuda ("Words that Wound") and Herbert Marcuse ("Repressive Tolerance")laid out the liberal justifications for this one-sided view of hate speech many years ago.
In the PC sphere of religions, Christians and Jews are oppressors, Muslims are victims.
Posted by: MBR at October 22, 2007 4:18 PM
The article poses an excellent point.
I thought hate speech was defined as that which is perceived as offensive to a minority group. Muslims are a minority religion in the USA and Europe (so far). Disregard the fact that women are more than 50% of the US population; they are legally considered a "minority".
So it's OK by politically correct standards to speak hatred of whites, Christians and males (or all of the above). You can be politically correct and hate the majority.
at October 22, 2007 4:22 PM
When I was a girl
and someone hated you
and called you a nasty name,
there was no blame spread 'round.
You stood your ground and said,
'Sticks and stones will break
my bones, but names will never hurt me.'
But back then, everyone was free.
at October 22, 2007 4:23 PM
Orange cap?
I'm drawing a blank on that reference. Can anyone help me out?
Thanks in advance.
Another explanation.. His speech will be given at Clemson University(SC)CLEMSON TIGERS...anyone who has been to a Clemson Football game will understand the ocean of orange that is a fixture there.Don't wear a red hat(University of South Carolina).Could be that simple...
Posted by: skydash at October 22, 2007 10:41 PM
teh revolutionary communist party of USA are urging all protesters to wear orange. in solidarity with the guatanamo prisoners.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at October 23, 2007 8:50 AM
This was an eloquent and intelligently written article. I wish I lived near Clemson so I could go hear his speech on the 25th.
thomas ato: In addition to what you listed, I'd add discrimination to the list of things to hate (unless you'd lump it under "oppression"). Muslims must discriminate within their own faith (usually against women, but this also harms men and children) and especially against non-Muslims. 5:51 anyone?
Ian: Nice simplification.
at October 23, 2007 7:29 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)