This is an increasingly common idea, and is not just restricted to failed presidential candidates. It is also an extremely insidious idea, for “hate speech,” contrary to popular belief, is not an objectively quantifiable entity. One’s person’s “hate speech” is another’s outspoken defense of liberty and justice. And there is no basis in the Constitution, or in the numerous Supreme Court decisions interpreting it up to now, for the claim that there is any exclusion of “hate speech” from First Amendment protection. The label of “hate speech” is a tool in the hands of the powerful that they use to stigmatize and silence the powerless.
That’s why Dean’s statement is so dangerous: it heralds the end of all First Amendment protection, and the criminalization of dissent. And since Leftists and Islamic supremacists constantly claim that to speak honestly about the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists constitutes “hate speech,” they mean to shut down all opposition to the advancing jihad. With Facebook and Twitter already choking off access to those who speak honestly about these issues, unless this current is halted and successfully resisted soon, the imposition of this tyranny is only a matter of time.

Jay says
I hate Howard Dean, and I can say that, because HATE SPEECH CERTAINLY IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
JIMJFOX says
You believe that it was the intention of that Amendment to protect advocating or demanding mass murder? REALLY? That horrible quotation about “…defend to the death your right…” was written by someone with zero capacity for critical thinking.
BINDON blood says
No of course not. Incitement to kill or murder,or damage property is a criminal offence in all Western countries. Incitement to kill is not “hate speech”,it is a specific criminal act aimed at others which the law seeks to prevent .. Hate is not necessarily part of it.
In reality to prove “hate speech hatred toward the subject of the speech would need to be proved. If there is no hatred there cannot be “hate speech”.Merely pointing out flaws or faults or anti social or unacceptable ideas and doctrine of ideologies or people is not “hate”. One might actually “love” the subject of the speech ,in the Christian sense,and hope to turn him from his current course.One might just dislike such ideas or doctrines.;that is not hate.
Speech can be hateful but it is not wrong to use hateful speech toward something one dislikes or fears.It cannot be an offence to feel “hateful” toward people or ideas;how on earth can it be controlled.? Why should it be controlled? People cannot be made to like or agree with other people or ideas by acts of government,neither should they. Hate ,when it exists ,is an emotion and cannot be turned off by state edict. It is as much a part of humanity as love or disgust or fear etc. Would a law commanding people to love each other be acceptable or practicable? No of course not. using hateful speech cannot be a crime because it is a right to be hateful and speech does not harm individuals. The state canot ban all speech that carries a possibility to arouse negative feelings in others. It is monstrous. If the speaker is actively,deliberately advocating the injury or death of individuals or groups there are laws to cover it already.
“Hate speech” law is totalitarian speech control which in turn is designed to control thoughts and emotions and free ,self expression.
Ashley says
OT: http://www.capradio.org/articles/2017/04/21/major-power-outages-reported-in-san-francisco,-new-york-city/
Hoping this is just a freak coincidence…
Transmaster says
They said a circuit breaker failed blew up and took out the substation.
Ashley says
I just have an uneasy feeling…
Doesn’t help that I recently read Ted Koppel’s “Lights Out.”
http://tedkoppellightsout.com/
Guest says
“Failed Presidential Candidate?” Last time I checked Trumpone. And it was because of “hate speech.”
Robert Spencer says
Uh, Howard Dean, not Trump, is the “failed presidential candidate” in question.
miriamrove says
Nice speech is nice speech. No one is going to object to it. It is hate and offensive speech that needs protection. What a DB. m
Tom says
It is because “hate speech” is subjective terminology that all speech, except that calling directly for the killing of a person or group of people, MUST be protected.
All freedom loving people should live by the following (paraphrased) “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for you to be able to say it.”
Tom says
For those interested in the actual quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall here it is below
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall”
JIMJFOX says
SO-“Behead those who insult the prophet”, “Slaughter the infidels” and so on is protected? Who’d have thought the writers of the Constitution had incitement to mass murder in mind when considering Freedom of Speech”???
epistemology says
Couldn’t agree more, dear Miriam, and as Robert put it, one person’s hate speech is another one’s defence of liberty and justice. I’ve always envied you guys because of your first amendment something we don’t have in Europe. Please keep it and defend it by all means.
Benedict says
“Howard Dean: “Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment” –
Does that mean that the hate speech in the Qur’an is unconstitutional?
mortimer says
Agree with Benedict. Most of the text in the Koran could be considered hate speech and such hateful messages, I believe, would qualify as ‘hate speech’ in jurisdictions that have ‘hate speech’ laws. The US does not have a ‘hate speech’ law, unlike what Howard Dean supposes. He is making up his own facts.
Censorship of so-called ‘hate speech’ cannot be allowed under the US constitution unless there is a specific ‘hate speech’ law created. I believe that is impossible.
-“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, prosecutor 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).
Benedict says
Pertinent quotations.
JawsV says
Dean? Is that moron still around? What’s in the water in Vermont that produced such idiots as Dean and Sandals? You’re not presidents and never will be!
Lilythewise says
Last time I checked inciting violence was not Free Speech. You can spew hateful nonsense in a free country but nobody has to listen to it.
Many Leftists assaulted people who voted for Trump.
no_one says
This guy is communist. Commies didn’t allow free speech. No one was allowed to criticize commies. The same is going on with lefties and islamist. And everyone mocks Christianity and Christians.
juanita says
hate speech is protected it is when you say “fight words” is when you are not protected (S. Court ruling 1941)
David says
Once a fool, always a fool.
Wellington says
Howard Dean is one of many New Yorkers, many from Massachusetts too, who helped ruin Vermont. Vermont used to be one of the most sensible and traditionally American of all fifty states. No more.
Loads of outsiders from liberal states like New York and Massachusetts have moved in droves to Vermont over the past fifty years or so and flipped it into Leftland, which wasn’t that hard to do because Vermont had only hundreds of thousands, not millions, of people there in the first place Bernie Sanders is another fine example of a parasitic New Yorker moving to Vermont and then trying (unfortunately successfully) to make it into a mini-New York. I have a very good conservative friend who lives in Vermont and he and other long time Vermonters are sick to death of what has happened to their state. Right now, the libtards are working on New Hampshire, which failed to go for Trump this past November by only some three thousand votes (Contrast: Only one of Vermont’s 14 counties went for Trump over Clinton while 6 of New Hampshire’s 10 counties went for Trump). Traditional New Hampshireites hate what is happening to their state and know full well what has happened to Vermont. And they call libs from Massachusetts who have moved to New Hampshire (mostly to the southern part of the Granite state) “Massholes.” Yeah, not meant as a compliment.
What the Left touches it ruins, whether marriage, the economy, education, entire states, etc.) It has ruined Vermont and is now trying to ruin New Hampshire. One of the things the Left most ruins is freedom, which helps explain Dean’s stupid comment about hate speech. Well, if you make a distinction between free speech and hate speech, as modern liberals are wont to do time and time again, you are no ally of free speech. Indeed, quite the opposite. ANYONE, no exception, who makes a distinction between hate speech and free speech is an enemy of liberty. NO EXCEPTION. Like Screamin’ Howard Dean.
P.S. Ending on a positive note, West Virginia has flipped too. It used to be one of the most Democratic of all states (e.g., it was one of only six states that went for Carter in the 1980 Presidential election). No longer. Now it is a lock for the Republicans at the Presidential level and even the Democrats left there, like Senator Manchin, harken back to the Democrats of old like JFK and Truman. In short, West Virginia is a cause for optimism because it has not lost its collective mind as Vermont has. Lose one, win one; though I prefer to lose one, win five or six.
TheBuffster says
Thanks for that post, Wellington.
Jim Conch says
Looks like, according to Dean, the BLM is guilty of Hate Speech. So when will they be prosecuted?
Dry Academy says
I define leftist ideology as hate speech and I demand that it be banned. Anyone propagandizing for Leftist causes should be prosecuted as an enemy of the people.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Troybeam says
Howard Dean, a special kind of stupid that shines often.
R Cole says
The Left think it’s a short cut. They think by limiting freedom of speech in accordance with Islam – will produce the desired outcome. But it can only lead to what we can see of the Islamic world and the tyranny imposed on people underneath its laws.
There’s no shortcut around liberty and basic human rights. In the Islamic world they purposely take different route, because they place Islam above all rights and freedoms, even above life itself. [See Cairo Declaration of Human Rights]
And there’s the question of who chooses. Some guy in Saudi Arabia, sitting on a rug, should chose what we say?
::
The Left have sold their souls!! All they want is mass migration. Because most Muslims are immigrants, they don’t want anyone to question Islam’s ability to coexist within western norms, and under western rule of law or to wonder aloud about threats to national security, for now and into the future. This is the discourse the Left calls ‘hate speech’. It just gets in the way of the backhanders they get from Soros – who wants to keep the mass immigration flowing no matter what the cost to the west and its bedrock of rights and freedoms. Effectively handing Christendom over to Islam, for their own greedy self interests.
Norger says
That means any fact-based/Islamic scriptural based explanation of how terrorists use Islamic theology to justify their actions now constitutes “hate speech” because it offends the likes of Howard Dean. Doesn’t matter whether the statement is factually accurate. Whether true or not, if a “protected” group (like Muslims) finds the speech to be offensive, it must be “hate speech.” Howard Dean is the same guy who said that ISIS was as Islamic as he is, right?
A true enemy of the First Amendment.
mortimer says
Critics of the term ‘hate speech’ have argued that it is used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented. In fact, the term ‘HATE SPEECH’ is now REGULARLY used WHENEVER an idea cannot stand up to CRITICAL THOUGHT.
In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The study failed to link telecommunication to hate crimes. Its recommendation was that the best way to fight hate speech was through ADDITIONAL SPEECH promoting tolerance, as opposed to government regulation.
That conclusion is still a reasoned response to speech we do not like: MORE SPEECH…and…dare I say it, DEBATE?
If anyone disagrees with criticism of the POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of Islam, why not publicly debate it?
It seems the apologists of Islam already realize that Islam loses in EVERY DEBATE and that debating will always result in ISLAM being RECOGNIZED as a FAILED IDEOLOGY.
Robbins Mitchell says
Then Howard Dean needs to STFU…since he obviously hates Ann Coulter and trying to undermine her 1st Amendment rights is clearly “hate speech”
pdxnag says
Hate speech? Is that when you draw Bush as a monkey? Or is it when you draw Obama as a monkey?
Lisa says
WHY is Howard Dean still speaking!?! I call THAT hate speech!
TheBuffster says
I woke up this morning to find that Dave Cullen had posted a terrific video laying out how freedom of speech is being undermined all over the West, so I shared it on social media and sent it to everyone on my email address book. I don’t spam my email address like that very often, but lately I’ve been doing that for the defense of freedom of speech.
So, here – listen to Dave and share it around:
Steve K says
This is the goal of modern leftists…Declare all speech that disagrees with them “hate speech” and ban it. That way they can rule, with no dissent permitted.
How long before we have political prisoners convicted of thought crimes in the us? Not long, if people like Howard dean get their way
saturnine says
“No, Gov. Dean, there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment”
From renowned First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/no-gov-dean-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment
mortimer says
Dear Doctor Dean,
Most of the Koran is ‘hate speech’ in the sense that you understand it. Please read the Koran yourself and you will discover that there is hate speech on practically every page. The Koran has been called a ‘troop motivator’.
Steve K says
hate speech to a leftist–anything that tells the truth about islam
American4Truth says
Exactly!
Rosie says
Hate speech modt certainly IS protected by the first amendment. That’s why the Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie. The left — or at least the ACLU which fought for their right to march — used to understand that.
Rosie says
Most certainly I meant
Ren says
I have had enough listening to the libtards. Basta!
More Ham Ed says
What a great thread! Yaaaaaaahhhhhhh!
n tesdorf says
There is no such thing as ‘Hate Speech’, there is only comment. Without Freedom of Speech, there is no civilisation.
duh swami says
So when the liberal/left call Donald Trump all kinds of vile and hateful names, they can be arrested? Is calling Trump Hitler…hate speech? I think I see a lot of hypocrites out 6there…
Creole Gumbo says
The Constitution was written to protect “hate speech.” Speech that offends no one does not need protection.
Creole Gumbo says
Speech that offends no one does not need protection.
Ollie Octopus says
This isn’t the end, but rather the beginning of the assault by the left on our freedom of speech and religion. Americans just lost their First Amendment rights, but few realize it. The right of homosexual perverts to marry may seem harmless to many, but look at what happened in Canada and what is about to happen here.
In Canada, same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005. I, Dawn Stefanowicz, am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.
In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups. The Left wants to usher in state control over every institution and freedom. In this scheme, personal autonomy and freedom of expression become nothing more than pipe dreams, and children become commodified.
Troybeam says
Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment: Free Speech is allowing a person to express themselves, it also gives a person the right not to listen to the speaker, don’t like what’s being said either counter the speaker or walk away.
UNCLE VLADDI says
SO: What is “hate-speech” and why should it be considered a crime if it’s NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)?
If it’s not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech – or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one’s life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating – then it’s THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of ‘hurt feelings!’ So it isn’t objectively “offensive,” but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively “offended” by their victims being notified about THEIR offenses!
Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, all criminals will resort to using emotive ‘arguments’ to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) can be relied on to try to criminalize hurt feelings and to make offending people, (i.e: the criminals, by accusing them of their crimes) illegal, too!
Beyond that, ALL “Hate-Speech Laws” ARE CRIMES!
“Progressive” criminals – who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims’ rights – pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).
So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!
Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?
NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.
Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed – that’s just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts – but because it’s fraudulent slander.
Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!
Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!
Terry Gain says
So does this mean the Koran can be banned?
a marvin says
Howard Dean knows all about hate speech. Anyone who disagrees with him, he considers a hater.
American4Truth says
According to liberals, anyone that takes the Bible literally is guilty of hate speech.
The U.S. has unfortunately moved away from good morals and morality and is now following morally corrupt secular philosophy.
My prayer is that God will help our country and society return to sane and moral principles.
No country is great without a Godly people.
Dustin Koellhoffer says
Inciting violence is not protected. Hate speech is encouraged.
liberalsbackwardsthink.com
Santa Voorhees says
“Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment”.
I guess all the imams who advocate for the killing of jews and their leftist supporters should take note.