| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Bad news from a Rasmussen telephone survey: this is why CAIR and co. are so unrelenting in characterizing all discussion of the Islamic jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism as "hate speech." It could easily become illegal to discuss these things in the United States -- and then the jihad would continue unimpeded.
From Rasmussen Reports, June 16 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly guard their right to free speech (88%). But, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just over half (53%) say the United States should refrain from banning so-called “hate speech.”Twenty-eight percent (28%) think it is a good idea to ban hate speech, which is loosely defined as comments intended to put down or incite violence against people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other legally protected categories. Nearly one in five voters (19%) are undecided on whether such a ban is necessary.
Women are less opposed to banning hate speech than men. African-American voters are evenly divided while White voters oppose such a ban by a 57% to 24% margin. Many African-American leaders argue for protection from racist hate crimes.
Support for a ban on hate speech declines when voters are reminded that government would define what constitutes “hate speech.” Seventy-four percent (74%) say it is better to allow free speech without government interference than to let the government decide what types of hate speech should be banned. Only 11% disagree and would give government the power to decide what speech should be banned. These answers parallel findings in other recent Rasmussen Reports surveys showing that voters overwhelmingly view the government as a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests....
Posted by Robert at June 16, 2008 11:09 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"You don't miss your water, 'till your well runs dry."
Posted by: tanstaafl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 16, 2008 11:55 AM
Be careful USA or you will have a "Canada" on your hands, where truth is no defense.
Posted by: Sounder at June 16, 2008 12:08 PM
Incitement to violence is a crime by itself.
The problem is "hate speech" has been defined down to anything that makes someone else feel bad. Its very definition is subjective and its enforcement can never be consistent.
Posted by: PMK at June 16, 2008 12:09 PM
'Hate speech' is something that turns people off.
Especially simpletons who don't understand how they're being manipulated by that term.
There are an awful lot of people who don't understand the first amendment and who don't deserve to be citizens of the US of A. Unfortunate indeed.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 16, 2008 12:49 PM
'Freedoms just another word for nuthin else to lose'.
We have lost nearly everything else, and now we are about to lose freedom. They will legalize us into slavery...Of course that is the idea.
'They' are the seizers (Ceasar's) of power.
Tolstoy was right when he said that the 'good', cannot seek power or retain it, that, that required love of power, which is the opposite of 'goodness'.
We see the results of this with 'thought', and 'hate speech crimes', or any 'hate crime'.
There are two ways to combat this, vote out the rot.
While we wait, jurors must refuse to convict. Even if the person is technically guilty. If the gov can't get convictions they will stop enforcing, or change the law. Of course the power addicts will come up with something else, but at least they have to change tactics...
at June 16, 2008 12:51 PM
From a viewer and listeners point of reference, "Hate Speech" is wonderful and enlightening - look at how well hate speech has served the KKK. Racist pride now only appeals to the most ignorant. In the past century, truth has had a lacerating effect on this US organization. The KKK is a shadow of its former self due specifically to their right to free speech. We know what they stand for, we all know their world view is a lie.
Those who belch out hateful beliefs under the guise of free speech enlighten rational individuals who who learn, debate and ultimately know better. In a sense, if freedom of speech is destroyed, we will be blind to moral intention of those who wish to destroy our way of life. Nice trick, lame but still just a trick.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at June 16, 2008 1:11 PM
The link has to be made between "hate speech" and the First Ammendment. We can not leave something this important to the courts and merely hope they do the right thing. We must make plenty of noise. Write letters to the editor, post on blogs, call radio shows, speak to your friends.
Posted by: MP at June 16, 2008 1:11 PM
"88% Say Free Speech is Good, But Only 53% Oppose Ban on Hate Speech"
That's what you get when you cede control of your educational system to ideologues. Students know more about what Malcolm X had to say than Thomas Jefferson or John Adams. They can't grasp the most simple principles and ideals of the American revolution and founding fathers because no one has ever taught them.
The Ideologues have succeeded in replacing all the founding principles of our nation with a whole new set of principles, like "the freedom not to be insulted", and freedom from "hurtful speech."
The poll doesn't suprise me one bit. The writing's been on the wall for a long time now.
Posted by: rational
at June 16, 2008 1:20 PM
If the US truly wants "Hate" crimes based upon suppression of free speech, we will gladly send you all of our Human Rights Commissions, and the employees free of charge. Maybe then we can get back to have one law for everyone.
And if you take them, shame on you.
Posted by: OolongChung at June 16, 2008 2:59 PM
People - check out this article on Dearbornistan.
They are taking over our country demographically - and we are letting them.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080616/METRO/806160382/&imw=Y
Posted by: darcy at June 16, 2008 4:42 PM
No, I am Spartacus!
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 16, 2008 5:08 PM
"Be careful USA or you will have a "Canada" on your hands, where truth is no defense."
Yes, it's scary there, but Ezra Levant has been doing an absolutely fantastic job 'denormalising' their 'S13' and it looks as though it will change for the better - there's plenty of political support for change now. I check Ezra's site daily - it's been fascinating history in the making.
Once that happens, other countries would have a lot of trouble justifying vague and loosely defined hate speech laws.
Posted by: Lili at June 16, 2008 10:47 PM
In reading the article, I can't help but wonder if everyone who participated in the survey understood the "banning of hate speech" question.
Was it made clear to them that the ban would be, not on hateful speech, itself, but on the idea that there should be any speech classified as "hate speech", and thus no longer protected by the First Amendment as free speech? In other words, was it made clear that a "ban on hate speech" would be a compromise of their right to free speech?
It took me a few seconds to puzzle out the headline of the article (I'm generally brain dead, after work). Maybe the pollsters presented the question in an ambiguous way.
If I didn't know better, I would suggest that this poll involved some word games and manipulations...
Posted by: Abscedere at June 16, 2008 11:26 PM
If they can control the language, they can control the media and the government (they already have State and HS dhimmified with newspeak: jihad is a naughty word).
Hello Caliphate! We hear you knocking!
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at June 17, 2008 1:15 AM
We're toying around with free speech that is one of the cornerstone of our values and virtues just to please aliens who are guests in our homes and whose true intent is to take over management of our lives through the manipulation of our inherited constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: are we to allow ourselves to be led by the nose willingly like carabaos?
Posted by: jmbennettusa at June 17, 2008 7:06 AM
The First Amendment is not subject to stupidity, political correctness, or daft poll responses.
Posted by: kevin at June 17, 2008 9:37 AM
Abscedere wrote:
In reading the article, I can't help but wonder if everyone who participated in the survey understood the "banning of hate speech" question.
Was it made clear to them that the ban would be, not on hateful speech, itself, but on the idea that there should be any speech classified as "hate speech", and thus no longer protected by the First Amendment as free speech? In other words, was it made clear that a "ban on hate speech" would be a compromise of their right to free speech?
If I didn't know better, I would suggest that this poll involved some word games and manipulations...
................................
I wondered about the phrasing, myself. I'm sure a lot of Americans assume that "hate speech" means someone directly urging you to go out and murder your neighbors. I doubt many Americans are aware of the shameful history of "hate crimes" laws in Europe and Canada.
But that is the very danger--it is not just surveys that can be subject to manipulated language. When you look at some of the absurd legislation that gets passed, you realize that often the members of the political bodies involved not only fail to understand the ramifications of the legislation, very often they do not even bother to read it. Really, who isn't against "hate"?
Also--is anyone else alarmed that 12% of Americans, according to this poll, are not in favor of *freedom of speech*? I wonder how that question was phrased . . .
Posted by: gravenimage at June 19, 2008 12:30 PM
(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.)