• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Half of Democrats support laws curtailing the freedom of speech

May 26, 2015 12:21 pm By Robert Spencer

The problems with this should be obvious, and it’s a sign of the fix we’re in that they aren’t. Who decides what speech is “intended to stir up hatred against a particular group”? Islamic supremacist groups such as Hamas-linked CAIR and other “Islamophobia”-mongers relentlessly claim that foes of jihad terror and Sharia supremacism are stirring up hatred against Muslims. This charge is entirely baseless, as any Muslim who sincerely rejects jihad terror and the imposition of Sharia in the West should be standing with us, and is welcome to do so.

But the key question here is, who decides? The allies and friends of those who believe, or claim to believe, that it is “inciting hatred” to oppose jihad terror and Sharia supremacism are in the corridors of power. If the Democrats succeed in criminalizing “hate speech,” there is no doubt that it will become illegal to speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and the jihadis will be able to advance unimpeded.

“Half of Democrats support a ban on hate speech,” YouGov, May 20, 2015 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

Most Americans support expanded federal hate crime laws, but are divided on banning hate speech

Since 1994 people convicted of federal crimes motivated by the ‘actual or perceived’ identity of victims have faced tougher sentences. Many other states had passed ‘hate crime’ statutes in earlier years, and in recent years many states have been adopting laws which make crimes motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation of gender identity hate crimes which face tougher sentences, something the federal government did in 2009. Unlike much of the rest of the developed world, however, the United States does not make it a criminal offense for people to make statements which encourage hatred of particular groups. For example a prominent British columnist, Katie Hopkins, is being investigated by the police for referring to African migrants crossing the Mediterranean as ‘cockroaches’.

YouGov’s latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups.

Support for banning hate speech is also particularly strong among racial minorities. 62% of black Americans, and 50% of Hispanics support criminalizing comments which would stir up hatred. White Americans oppose a ban on hate speech 43% to 36%.

When it comes to crimes motivated by hatred, most Americans do back the current federal hate crime laws, including the expanded definition of hate crime passed in 2009. 56% of Americans back the federal law mandating tougher penalties for cimes motivated by race, religion or gender, and 51% support expanding that to include sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Democrats (68%) tend to be much more supportive of the law than either independents and Republicans. Republicans (38% to 39%) are split over the expanded definition of hate crime, while independent tend to support (46%) rather than oppose (28%) it….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, free speech, hate crimes, Useful idiots Tagged With: Democrats


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Neil Jennison says

    May 26, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Just like in the UK, in the USA democracy and freedom are committing suicide before my very eyes.

    • spot on says

      May 26, 2015 at 3:07 pm

      Once Democrats are convinced they are in control of the vote by virtue of uncontrolled immigration, they they will all likely want to control OUR speech but not theirs. They are the bullies. They want us to shut up and do what they want or else. How many people in 1930’s Germany were like this and supported Hitler. Probably most of them. Human nature stays the same and history repeats.

      • Oliver says

        May 26, 2015 at 4:20 pm

        As Nat Hentoff a writer for THE VILLAGE VOICE (a NYC newspaper-not sure if still around; and Mr. Hentoff, if alive, must be in his 80’s at least) wrote a book regarding this,. The title says it all.

        ” FREE SPEECH FRO ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE”.

  2. KrazyKafir says

    May 26, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    A lot of gutless cowardly dhimmi CINO wimps about too. We Should never forget who they are.

  3. Don McKellar says

    May 26, 2015 at 12:46 pm

    Here is the problem with this poll: it is mixing in religion with race! OF COURSE the majority of blacks and hispanics will be ALL FOR hate speech laws! So a majority of liberal-minded people! That’s because all they’re thinking about is that they see the race card right there and, rightfully so, they have an automatic reaction of YES without looking at the whole question or the implications of embracing the whole question’s implications.

    This is why religion needs to be taken OUT of the question. Gender, race, sexual orientation — these are NOT an option for people. They are what they are. It is wrong to spew angry hate at them or about them — and at a public level it is destructive. But religion is a CHOICE. You choose to embrace a religion or philosophy. You are free to do so. And your religion, and those who do bad things in the name of it, are OPEN GAME for people who can and should speak out against it and you. That must NEVER be made criminal in a free society or it is no longer free.

    Nazism is a religion as much as Islam is. It has its own myth, its own profit, its own customs, its own belief system. If such a law were passed, should it be deemed hate speech to speak out against Nazis?

    • Don McKellar says

      May 26, 2015 at 12:48 pm

      profit >>> prophet

      And a bunch of other grammatical errors after a quick read and I see and now can’t edit. Ugh.

    • awake says

      May 26, 2015 at 2:41 pm

      Not everyone’s religion is a choice. See the articles on the main page about the consequences of converts from Islam. After you elected yourself as the arbiter of what is permissible free speech, I stopped reading the rest of your drivel.

      • thelmalou says

        May 26, 2015 at 8:56 pm

        You can leave any religion in your own heart. Perhaps not publicly but if you’re heart’s not in being Muslim, you won’t be a target of people who verbally criticize the tenets of Islam.

    • spot on says

      May 26, 2015 at 4:00 pm

      Don McKellar

      You said…This is why religion needs to be taken OUT of the question. Gender, race, sexual orientation — these are NOT an option for people. They are what they are. It is wrong to spew angry hate at them or about them — and at a public level it is destructive.

      I agree that spewing hatred, racial or otherwise, is wrong but I do not agree that it should be illegal. We voluntarily avoid spewing racial hatred out of respect but if we lose our right to public speech, we lose it all. Who is the arbiter of acceptable speech? The government. There are adequate liable laws to protect against slander except maybe with regard to the MSM. (Just note how MSM devastated two descent people in the untrue Michael Brown and Travon Martin media stories).

      Garbage racist talk between people is totally unregulated as it should be unless we want big brother to drag us in front of a judge for any little misquoted thing. The government then becomes the arbiter of what we can and cannot say to each other.

      The management of schools needs to be in the hands of the school board and community not the legal system unless civil laws are broken by the school. Some teachers and administrators need to be fired and they regularly are where I live.

      Freedom of speech is priceless but I assure anyone that many politicians will do everything in their power to limit our free speech. These types will make every effort to get even with anyone that speaks badly of them in public. I have seen close friends personally threatened by politicians when they said nothing even derogatory. The politicians just thought they might say something and wanted to intimidate them. If a governor personally threatened you what would you do. There is no judge and jury with them. In the US they use the IRS. Vindictive lower level politicians use what ever is at their disposal to get even. In some countries, people are slammed in jail and anally raped or killed by vindictive politicians. Some of the most vindictive people in the world are politicians. Why should we be forced to kow-tow to their whims by having our speech legally controlled by them. This would make it easy for them to slam us into the legal system for the slightest thing, even if they didn’t like what our children said.

    • thelmalou says

      May 26, 2015 at 8:09 pm

      Delineated excellently.

    • Brian Hoff says

      May 27, 2015 at 9:37 pm

      You are so wrong if than christian comit than criminal act other people donot ask other christian to denonce that person or defence they religion. Christian arenot perscute in america.

      • Angemon says

        May 28, 2015 at 7:16 am

        Brian Hoff posted:

        “You are so wrong if than christian comit than criminal act other people donot ask other christian to denonce that person or defence they religion.”

        Oh really? How does that relate with what Don McKellar posted about keeping religion, which is a personal choice, out of hate-speech laws?

        “Christian arenot perscute in america.”

        Try reading a bible in school, or refusing service to homosexuals because of your religion and see how that works out for you.

  4. Papa Whiskey says

    May 26, 2015 at 12:46 pm

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    John F. Kennedy, Address on the first Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, March 13, 1962

    The same applies to resistance, a fact that these people had best mark well. Moreover, such laws are not necessarily going to apply only to those of whose “hate” they disapprove. Consider the bile spewed by the black Boston University professor Saida Grundy, who opined that white males are a “problem population.” It should not be supposed that she and other black racists are going to be able to rant with impunity under “hate crime” laws.

    • Ed in North Texas says

      May 27, 2015 at 8:05 am

      “It should not be supposed that she and other black racists are going to be able to rant with impunity under ‘hate crime’ laws.”

      We might not suppose it, but it would not be smart to bet against the proposition that they will not be prosecuted. What is “politically correct” (PC) will determine whether a District/US Attorney’s Office decides to bring a case or not. It is currently not PC to state the fact that the majority of crimes involving black victims are perpetrated by blacks. As long as Liberals determine what is PC, and what is not, a person making that statement is in far more danger of being prosecuted under enhanced “Hate Speech” statutes than are Grundy and her ilk.

      Currently we have Federal, and many state, “Hate Crime” statutes. These statutes generally criminalize thought, for they assign additional penalty for what the perpetrator of a crime was thinking when either planning or carrying out the act. Is the murder of a person more heinous because the person was a member of a group upon which the government has conferred special status? Not to the victim. And how do we know, beyond a reasonable doubt, what was in the mind of the perpetrator when committing the crime? Sometimes that has been fairly obvious, (e.g. lynchings of black people accompanied by burning crosses and white robes, which hasn’t been seen in quite a few decades), but today it isn’t that easy.

      So-called “hate speech” statutes are worse than the problem they are supposed to fix. I almost wrote “are intended to fix”, except I suspect some of those proposing such bills aren’t interested in fixing a problem unless the problem is allowing their opponents and the citizens in general to speak freely.

  5. Wellington says

    May 26, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Ominous. And indicative of how fragile freedom really is. Among other things, for freedom to survive it needs a knowledgeable and stalwart population to sustain it. Such a populatiion is declining in America.

    One other specific matter and that is hate crime legislation. Here’s what I have to say about it: It’s stupid. Certain motives should never be the reason for additional punishment. Motive should be irrelevant where punishment is concerned. For punishment purposes only action should be taken into account. It should make no difference WHY someone was killed or harmed, whether because of their race, religious belief, gender, sexual preference or because someone wanted their money or didn’t like the sports jersey they were wearing. Creating a gradation of punishment based on motive has the iniquitous effect of insuring inequality under the law. If someone who is beaten up for his money has his perpetrators get five years in jail but someone who is beaten up because of their race or sexual preference has his perpetrators get eight years in jail becasue three years have been tacked on for hate crime purposes, how in the hell does this protect the equal rights of the person who was beaten up for his money?

    • spot on says

      May 26, 2015 at 2:01 pm

      Government “screwls” groom children from an early age to have a fuzzy love for government. No way around it. These screwls produce anything but a “stalwart” population. It all fits their liberal (Dept. of Education Approved) utopian formula that leads to mass self destructive behavior.

  6. Theodoric says

    May 26, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    The vile “Prophet” Muhammad’s Shariamonster, also known as “Islam,” wants to decapitate our freedom of speech. Muhammad himself had his critics murdered – and Muhammad’s Shariamonster still follows his barbaric “Excellent Example.”

    Will Americans stand with the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Bill of Rights for the Land of the Free – or will they stand with the vile Shariamonster which brings oppression and violence wherever it goes?

    Let’s stand with the Founding Fathers, and stand with Geller and Spencer – and not with the cowardly idiots who would have us discard our most precious freedom.

    Say “NO” To Muhammad’s Shariamonster, and say “NO” to Islam!

    https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/say-no-to-muhammad-s-shariamonster/

  7. spot on says

    May 26, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    Hate crime laws are ridiculous. These laws are a huge sign alerting us that our society has a declining ability to reason. It is almost as if Alice in Wonderland logic has become normal in our society. Another example of this ridiculous logic is the upside down accepted media portrayal of the Michael Brown story.

    Crime is crime. Hate is hate and hate is not a crime. When a criminal murders a victim, the victim is dead and it doesn’t really matter to the victim if hate was involved. The victim is still dead. The punishment should fit the crime and circumstances but not hatred. There is no way to quantify hatred. Judges and juries can decide the nuances, circumstances, and impact of the crime but the laws should not quantify hatred as a crime. Maybe this is just one calculated small step on the way toward being like Europe.

    I often believe we are stupid for allowing our politicians to do these kinds of thing to us. They get by with it because government schools groom children from an early age to develop a fuzzy love for government with little emphasis on the 3 R’s. One conservative commentator refers to government schools as “screwls”. The 3 R’s are the basis for a good education and good logic and reason develops from there. Our government likes us stupid. Stupid people are easier for the government to manage (they think).

  8. JamesonRocks says

    May 26, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    “For example a prominent British columnist, Katie Hopkins, is being investigated by the police for referring to African migrants crossing the Mediterranean as ‘cockroaches’.”

    So… If one said this comparison is a “compliment to the African migrants crossing the Mediterranean” I suppose that would be “hate speech” of some sort?

  9. William Lucas Harvey Jr. says

    May 26, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    It figures – WHO IS America’s “Imperial” Potus “Dictator” – Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., a DEMOCRAT – and an apparent Pro Islam, Pro Muslim, seemingly Anti America, Anti Constitution, Anti Christian, Anti israel “Leader” (by HIS OWN DOCUMENTED Words, Actions, and Deeds, such as “Islam has always been part of America”, and “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”) – VERY Mush in Favor of Islam’s “Anti Free Speech” and “Blasphemy” Laws.

  10. somehistory says

    May 26, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    Hate crime laws written to punish motive and thoughts about the victim held by the perpetrator are, for lack of a simpler term, stupid.
    When a man murders his wife, the police will attempt to find evidence of the crime, and one of the things they consider first is motive. They may look at insurance policies, wills, whether she asked for or was seeking divorce that would cost him alimony/child support, whether he had a girl friend, etc.
    However, motive may not be provable and it is not necessary to take the murderer to trial. The act of murder is enough to put him away or to death if proven to the jury’s satisfaction of beyond their reasonable doubt. Motive can be speculated upon by the prosecutor in order to help the jury convict, but it is not necessary to prove it.
    The *hate* crime addition is stupid on its face because no one can really know the mind of another in order to *prove* hate beyond reasonable doubt and it doesn’t make the victim any increased amount of dead.

    Hate speech is in the ear of the hearer. As an example: I wrote once that I did not find a certain kind of music to my liking. I didn’t say anything negative about the worth of said music, nor the worth of those who wrote, played, sang, or liked it. I just stated simply that it wasn’t something to which I liked to listen.
    But, one of the individuals who knew what I wrote accused me, in very unflattering terms, of hatred and devaluing the music as *worthless* and so too, the people who did like it.

    Now in all honesty, I do hate islam, and say that it has absolutely no worth. I tell all whom I can that it is a system of hatred, murder, rape of women, raping of children as young as newly born, thuggery, extortion, and without one redeeming quality to recommend it as something in which to believe. These are all true statements, but would someone say then that I have said I hate all muslims? If it followed the same as what I said about not liking the music being discussed, yes..

    This is the danger of making laws against speech that is said to be hateful. And we are all here at Jihad Watch fully aware of what cair and other muslim orgs can and do when someone tells the truth about islam or is scheduled to speak about islam….even before they speak, they are said to be engaging in hate speech. And much verbal, hateful speech is carried by cair and others to shut down the truthful speech about their foul system of subjugation and murder for satan and his beast of islam.

  11. Wellington says

    May 26, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    Off hand, I can’t think of ANY hate speech, not accompanied by action, that should be illegal. True freedom demands this and obloquy towards those spewing real hate should be the “remedy” and not some kind of legal redress. I would be interested in anyone who disagrees with my view here proffering an example of hate speech (again, unaccompanied by action) that should be illegal.

    • mortimer says

      May 26, 2015 at 5:35 pm

      Wellington, old boy, how would you feel about hate speech that solicited your murder? Should that be illegal? Just an example…no disrespect intended.

      • Wellington says

        May 26, 2015 at 6:13 pm

        As long, mortimer, as such speech was not accompanied by any action, I would still support its legality, though I would, of course, be outraged and call for complete ostracism of the person(s) making it—–as well as taking due precautions. I would do everything within my power to make it as publicly known as possible those issuing death threats towards me. Revulsion by myself and by society at large towards complete hatred and barbaristic, control-freak threats (at which, as I know you know, so many of Islam’s adherents excel) would be my solution and not the route of making such hatred illegal.

        Actually, this is exactly what Robert Spencer has had to put up with for many years now. And I am not aware that Spencer has requested or required that this be made illegal but “only” that the vermin doing so be monitored with diligence (which, to date, the US government, to its shame, has not done nearly enough).

        Freedom is most tested by those who would massively abuse it and thus, consciously or unconsciously, invite its restriction. For freedom’s sake, such sub-humans must not prevail. Rather, freedom must.

        And I fully realize you meant no disrespect. Your query, quite understandable and logical, went to the heart of what price has to be paid in order for freedom to be maintained. It is at times a very high price but a price nonetheless that needs to be honored. Freedom counts on this.

        • thelmalou says

          May 26, 2015 at 8:32 pm

          Solicitation of murder is illegal already. Supreme court 2008. An exception to the first amendment.
          http://volokh.com/posts/1211221587.shtml

          Death threats are also not covered by the constitution.
          cohttp://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/criminal-threats.htmnstitution.

          If Robert Spencer could determine exactly who is threatening him (not like they use their names) he could have them charged with something called “criminal threats.”

        • Wellington says

          May 26, 2015 at 10:51 pm

          thelmalou: Active solicitation is indeed illegal because, and as I already pointed out, this would be action accompanying speech. As for pure criminal threats, the general rule is that several requirements are necessary for criminal prosecution, among them being a direct threat of death or grave bodily harm which is clearly communicated and unequivocal, unconditional, specific and immediate and something which, by a reasonable man standard, would induce in the one threatened true fear.

          I should have been more specific in my response to mortimer by indicating that a general wish for death for someone needs to be distinguished from what I just outlined above. Of course, as with so much in the law, there are shades of gray that exist that could be argued either way. I also should have distinguished more clearly in my response to mortimer the difference between hate speech and true threats. The latter needs to be put in a different category from “mere” hate.

          I remember from law school a classic example of what is protected and what is not. It is this: Someone calling for a place to be burned down is protected by the First Amendment. However, if that same person started handing out torches to implement this, then that is not protected (again can be seen that action is the key element). Also, while hate speech is arguably always irresponsible, it should be distinguished from mendacious speech which in an immediate way could induce panic (e.g., falsely yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater) and which is not protected speech.

        • Kepha says

          May 27, 2015 at 9:19 pm

          I admit that I agree with Justice Jackson’s adage that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact–hence I can see limiting the right to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater or soliciting help in the commission of a crime of moral turpitude. But political speech and religious speech should not be touched, and any judge who entertains such cases should be impeached and removed as perjured (he has, after all, sworn to uphold the Constitution). I would even go so far as to remind the world that the First Amendment that allows that Florida preacher to burn the Qur’an also allows an Imam in Brooklyn to declare his Jewish neighbors to be the relatives of apes and pigs (both are sentiments with which I have little sympathy; even if I don’t like the Qur’an).

          I used to believe that all crimes were “hate crimes” to some degree or another, since I believe that love for God and neighbor basically follows what you read in the Ten Commandments. However, realizing that our current political, cultural, educational, and legal powers-that-be see the Decalogue as something that should not be allowed near the public square, I’ve reached a new conclusion.

          I suspect that the time is coming when the liberal judges will declare the acts their political clients such as Frank Lombard and the British rape gang to be “love crimes” or something like that. Perhaps some indigenous tribe somewhere that reverts to head-hunting or cannibalism–or a group of Muslims waging violent jihad in our midst– will be said to be committing “cultural dignity crimes”.

          In short, I see our times as both evil and foolish–with the law itself becoming an a$$. ***SIGH!** **GROAN!** and, in the immortal words of Charlie Brown, “AAAAAAUUUUUGGGGGH!”

    • Ol says

      May 27, 2015 at 6:57 pm

      I know that the following could be covered by libel and slander laws- in civil court.

      But a possible example-

      Person A hates person B. Reason(s) not that relevant for my example.

      So person starts a rumor that Person B is a pedophile, and also (sexually) abuses his own children. Now, besides the obvious effects, PERSON B (has grown children, all professionals, no minor children) BUT IS AN EDUCATOR.

      (This actually happened, Person B was accused of “locking his child, Henry” in a cage for hours on end.

      Child Welfare or whatever it was called then- this was about 15 years ago-when yelling at a child was considered abuse–investigated–unannounced, at dinner time, with a few police to arrest Person b if he protested.

      “Henry” was a pet, that left unattended, would wreck havoc.

      Not being satisfied, The “protectors” wanted Person B ‘volunteer” to be listed as a “possible” child molester/sexual deviant or something, and effectively end his career. he refused, and sued. He won.

      A your woman I know; separated from her husband; wealthy father-but not local-supporting her and her child-his only grandchild. Her landlord asked her for sex (he is older then her father), she refused. He called the police that she was running a brothel; dealing -buying drugs ( baby aspirin for he 2 year old); doing drugs; etc. She did not do drugs; did not sell drugs. Took a drug test-showed negative.

  12. mortimer says

    May 26, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    FREEDOM OFSPEECH IS THE RIGHT TO OFFEND—EVEN TO BLASPHEME

    U.S. law values and permits the right to blaspheme because there is no established ‘American religion’. What is ‘sacred’ to one person may be highly ‘blasphemous’ to another. Without an officially defined state religion, it is not the responsibility of the judges to intervene.
    -Justice Clark in 1952 wrote: “…it is enough to point out that the state has no
    legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful
    to them. … It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real
    or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
    -Justice Frankfurter noted that beliefs “…dear to one may seem the rankest ‘sacrilege’ to another,” and added concerning “sacrilegious” speech: “…history does not encourage reliance on the wisdom and moderation of the censor.”

    This fairly describes the US law as it sits today.
    ________________________________________
    INDIA’S SUPREME COURT – 2014 Landmark – Overturns India’s Hate Speech Laws

    The Supreme Court of India on Monday 3 March 2014, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by Advocate M L Sharma seeking intervention by the court in directing the Election Commission to curb hate speeches. Dismissing the plea, the Apex court said that it could not curb the fundamental right of the people to express themselves.

    “We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious right guaranteed by Constitution,” a bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said, adding “we are a mature democracy and it is for the public to decide. We are 1280 million people and there would be 1280 million views. One is free not to accept the view of others”. Also the court said that it is a matter of perception, and a statement objectionable to a person might not be normal to other person.
    – Wikipedia

    The right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.
    – Jonathan Chait, Daily Intelligencer, January 7, 2015

    -Ideas don’t have rights. People have rights.

    – “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” – Harry S. Truman

    -If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell

    -“The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

    -“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” -Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992).

    -“The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert H. Jackson, chief justice at the Nuremburg Trials

    -“…if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.”
    -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).

  13. mortimer says

    May 26, 2015 at 5:44 pm

    Muslims have the most to lose from hate speech rules. The Koran’s obvious hate speech can and, I predict, will be tried in court sooner or later.

    • Angemon says

      May 26, 2015 at 6:01 pm

      mortimer posted:

      “Muslims have the most to lose from hate speech rules. The Koran’s obvious hate speech can and, I predict, will be tried in court sooner or later.”

      That would be my knee-jerk reaction too – the quran (and other authoritative islamic sources as well) essentially dehumanizes non-muslims and calls for their subjugation or death, so it would surely be made illegal under hate-speech laws.

      But here’s the thing: everything points out that these hate-speech laws will make truth irrelevant. Meaning that while what you say is true, it’s assumed that you’re trying to spread hatred of a group of people and therefore you’ll be considered guilty regardless. In that case, what happens if someone points to the quran and says “look, this book teaches that non-muslims are the worst of creatures, that they’re worse than cattle, and that muslims are obligated to fight against then, this is hate speech and needs to be stopped”? I submit you this: whatever muslim representative was assigned to defend the quran (and islam by proxy) could simply say “you’re just trying to spread hate of muslims”, and the charges would be reversed, and the truth would be turned upside down.

  14. Lynn says

    May 26, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    Islamophobia: a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.

  15. Red Bee says

    May 26, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    If the Democrats succeed in criminalizing “hate speech,” the first one we should summon to appear before the court is Allah. I don’t think he will show up let alone face jail time. And he won’t be convicted in absence either.

    That will defeat any further prosecutions. Any lawyer should be able to win a “hate speech” case against a client with that jurisprudence.

    Click my name to have a look at my web site 🙂

  16. Champ says

    May 26, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    Who decides what speech is “intended to stir up hatred against a particular group”?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Great question; and this underscores the fact that laws limiting free speech will become arbitrary and capricious.

  17. R Cole says

    May 26, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    It’s all so offending Nazism!!

    The thing is how to you organize controlling speech – specifically for Islam.

    The definition of Islamophobia now covers ex-Muslims giving a truthful account of their experiences within the faith – according to CAIR – ex-Muslims who dare speak out have featured highly on their list of top ten US ‘Islamophobes’ .

    What such Muslim groups want is – that saying Islam is not Christianity – be made a criminal offense – despite the evidence.

    And backing this – are some who think that by giving in to such requests – it will satisfy Muslim demands on western society – despite the evidence.

    One look at the Islamic world – and it is clear the demands for more and more Islam – never cease – a tog of war or jihad that has been raging for nearly 1400 years.

    It’s fools gold!!

    ::

    Equally what these Muslims groups want – is what they have in the Islamic world – that is that Christians and other non-Muslims are secondary to them. Like the women in Islam get half – non-Muslims get even less than that.

    When CAIR says it wants to see the Koran made the highest authority in the land – that is saying ‘we intend to rip up the Constitution where it does not suit Islam.’

    The Left love an underdog – but this one will turn them into one. From here they can fight for their own rights!

    ::

    Islam’s cheap tricks – peddling their desert mirage!!

    It’s a failed idea ~ it’s a system where everybody can kill everybody – no wonder they are forced to migrate.

    Muslims are playing a fantasy game – and we are saying – we are not playing!!

    ::

    They can take their best shot at trying to change the laws in the US to sharia ones!!

    It’s the ‘free’ world!! But at the same time they can’t expect to delegitimize opposition.

    They want to make all non-Muslims second class citizens – in the name of their God – we are not going to make it easy for them.

    They want western subjugation on a platter! And the laws in place to back it up.

  18. vlparker says

    May 26, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    The whole concept of hate speech is moronic. It is punishing thought, a sure path to tyranny.

  19. Kepha says

    May 27, 2015 at 5:31 am

    This is why the Democratic Party is no longer “liberal”, but social fascist. it is determined to keep a narrow segment of the political class in power.

    Not only does this mean that you can no longer criticize the theology of a favored religion (in this case, Islam), but you will not be able to criticize any client group of the party in power.

  20. Erik says

    May 27, 2015 at 6:53 am

    As the quoran is hate speech from cover to cover, it would be the first victim of anti hate speech laws, in a sane world that is.
    The hatred for non believers, it’s misogyny, it’s genocidal intentions, the defense of the real existing slavery, the sexual slavery and gay hate, it’s supremacist pretensions and the total lawlessness under sharia for all but muslim men, and it’s anti scientific and cultural backwardness are literally dripping from every page.

  21. dumbledoresarmy says

    May 27, 2015 at 8:34 am

    From the article – “Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed.”

    Keep an eye open for the 26 percent, who might well be capable of waking up and joining the Resistance.

    • Ice Star says

      May 27, 2015 at 11:18 am

      The democrats would love to shut up anyone who opposes them. Just look at how Obama has attacked Fox News since day 1.

  22. Ice Star says

    May 27, 2015 at 11:16 am

    Any law that limits free speech will fail in court due to the First Amendment.

    • dante says

      May 28, 2015 at 11:54 pm

      If Democrats keep getting elected, they will be the ones appointing judges. All these limits would then be easier to enforce. The First and Second Amendments would be the first to go.

  23. Uncle Vladdi says

    May 27, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    “Group rights” (even for “minorities’) is might-makes-right gangster extortion, and as such implicitly opposes all real individual humans’ rights every time.

    The only people advocating for group rights and for idolatrously protecting “identifiable groups” are gangster extortionists, aka CRIMINALS (“liberals;” “muslims”).

    “Hate” is nothing more or less than the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam).

    People must be free to hate crimes and the criminals who commit them, and also to be allowed to communicate that disgust in free speech in order to ask others for their assistance in opposing the criminals and ending their crimes.

    When these criminals try to make “hate” into a crime, they only end up making it “illegal” to hate crime.

  24. Uncle Vladdi says

    May 27, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    The statistics prove the education (indoctrination) system was taken over by criminals.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • revereridesagain on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.