If you do, you’ll probably be like Mark Zuckerberg, who couldn’t quite define what it is, but stands by the principle that he hates “hate speech” nonetheless.
At his hearing, it was agreed that incitement to violence is hate speech, but even here I would disagree. Incitement to violence is incitement to violence. Antifa uses Facebook and Twitter to list names and places of violent protests. They tell their members what sort of weapons to bring and how best to conceal their identities. If incitement to violence is hate speech, then why is this allowed? Next, mention was made of human trafficking as an example of things that social media companies could and should be clamping down on as being hate speech. Again, this isn’t hate speech, it’s the selling and purchasing of human bodies. It’s not hate speech.
Zuckerberg stumbled and sweated, and the best he could proclaim was that he felt it was his duty to create spaces where people felt safe (without realizing that everything is relative and no one feels the same degrees of safety in any one environment or by hearing the exact same words spoken). At this point, he was taken to task and given a vision of a future where his social media platform gets to dictate what people can and cannot say. People who are pro-life, for example, would be punished and would have no voice, because their opinions would be considered to be hateful. He was then given stats that revealed that 40% of Americans under the age of 35 all agreed that saying anything that could possibly hurt another person’s feelings should be censored and punishable. How is any of this possible? Are we all to become mind-readers or walk around tip-toeing on eggshells with only certain words and mannerisms and facial expressions permissible?
Hate is an emotion. Hate away. I hate the left. I hate Islam. I hate the colour magnolia. I’m under no obligation to like or agree with or be in acceptance of anyone or anything on this planet. No obligation whatsoever. I’m free to hate as many people and things as I like. I do, however, have to realize that some speech is libelous if I’m spreading falsehoods about a person whom I hate. There are consequences to people’s actions. Hating is okay; it’s allowed. What’s not okay is violence. If your hatred drives you to violence, then there will be a price to pay, but hating in and of itself is fine. Hatred is a toxic emotion and detrimental to one’s well-being and quality of life, but no one has the right to tell anyone else not to hate.
Criticism. Is this hate speech? Criticism can range from an in-depth review of a Shakespearean play to telling someone that they’re too fat. It should be obvious here that one is an academic pursuit while the other is simply rude, but it’s not hate speech. It’s mocking, it’s insulting, and it can oftentimes be very very funny, especially if accompanied by a meme and directed at a bully.
The words spoken reveal the nature and the character of a person. If someone’s a hater, let them keep talking. Let them reveal their true nature and then simply avoid them. Don’t invite them out to drinks and ignore them at parties. It’s simple. It’s like pressing the mute button or changing the channel on the TV. All opinions are allowed and all voices must be heard.
elee says
Since hate tends to be poisonous I’m not having any. I’d just as soon every Muslim would wake up tomorrow, burn their scriptural collection of explicit incitements to violence, and be happier for it. But in the eyes of the mainstream it would probably be said that I have just uttered hate speech.
Andy says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM5EJlYkoMQ
Andy says
Zuckerberg Short Circuits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V08imYbJ1hQ
Andy says
Liberalism-We need to find a cure!!!
PLEASE HELP!!! RIGHT NOW THERE IS A LIBERAL/LEFTIST WHO NEEDS YOU HELP!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4std8QPnbG4
Andy says
Who utters REAL HATE speech???
Sick Liberal/Leftists comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHh8151aRVw
jihad3tracker says
HELLO ANDY —- DEEPLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THESE SUPER VIDEOS ! ! ! ! !
+++++++ 10000000 ! ! ! !
For every Jihad Watch viewer who follows Robert’s politicized Leftist “hate speech” postings, please view this Zuckerberg Short Circuits segment. If you are really short of time, start at roughly 4:20.
But the ENTIRE 7:35 IS WATCHING WHEN YOU ARE UN-DISTRACTED.
Ren says
@elee
Muslims would NEVER burn their scriptural collection of explicit incitements to violence because they stand by islam and by their phony prophet Muhammad. Either you fight them or you appease them.
elee says
“Fight them” is fine by me, as is killing them when they try to kill us or those we love or even those who happen to be merely innocent. I’m just not hating. Among other things, hate, like any emotion, compromises tactical judgment.
Ren says
@elee
I am wondering how much you give yourself into political correctness. You don’t fight what you love but you can only fight what offends you. Hate is just a matter of speech. In reality, hate is a feeling of aversion.
I understand you don’t hate muslims as human beings but you shouhd hate what they stand for. By fighting the muslims, I mean we should fight any of their sick ideas.
Hate compromises judgement only if it obfuscates the ability to reason. Hate is ok if it does not obfuscates the ability to reason.
isaac says
You CHOOSE to be offended. Start looking within yourself and find out why you are such a big baby who CHOOSES TO BE OFFENDED. Things and situations can make me irate, or angry, or motivated to intervene, but I’M NEVER OFFENDED. You should try it some time.
Ren says
@isaac
I don’t choose to be offended by people that kill in the name of Allah. Killing in the name of Allah in itself is offending. If you are not offended by such a thing, then you must definitely have a problem.
You said: “Things and situations can make me irate, or angry, or motivated to intervene, but I’M NEVER OFFENDED.”
So basically, you might get irate or angry, but never offended?
According to the Thesaurus, the synonym of “angry” is “offended”.
According to the Meriam-Webster, the synonym of “angry” is “outraged” and according to the same Meriam-Webster, the synonym of “outrage” is “offense”.
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Julea Bacall says
Hate speech is not just ‘offensive’. There is hate speech that should not be taught in public and it is so easy to see. The Qur’an is full of it and to read it in Mosque, threatening and inciting violence against others must be stopped. Same with nazimanifestos and KKKlan planning, inciting crimes against blacks. I don’t know whats wrong with people today. Hate speech, dangerous hate speech (not just offensive speech) happens and has to be stopped same as plagerism is, same as slander and libel, same as ‘fighten words’, incitement of overturning our constitutional laws.
Its SO easy to define. Really, really easy.
Ren says
@Julea Bacall
Just to be clear.
Hate speech is expressing a feeling of aversion for something or someone while speech that incites to violence against others is speech inciting to violence.
People get confused with the word “hate”. Hating or disliking something or someone is utterly legitimate. Being able to express it is free speech. On the other hand, hating or disliking someone and inciting violence against that someone is “criminal” and should not be allowed.
mortimer says
CLEAR HATE SPEECH IN THE KORAN — Over 60% of the Koran is HATE SPEECH and TERRORISM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrQngGswa2Y
mortimer says
Normative Islamic hate speech … Al Walaa wal Baraa … an essential doctrine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jds8dlBETKg
Richard says
Elee and Ren have it right. We each have a sort of connection to God, but the filth of hate blocks that connection. Georg Halas (Papa bear) put I beautifullyw hen he said: “I suppose there are some people I could hate, if I put my mind to it, but I don’t have the time. The big problem is when we put the into action, for it can cloud the judgment, just as can political correctness. Everything is relative. Incitement to violence is not always a bad thing. Would warning against Adolph Hitler in the 1930s have been a bad thing? Could inciting this nation to war against Nazi Germany before Pearl Harbor have been a bad thing? Was inciting Christians to take part in the Crusades a bad thing? I would say “No” to all those occasions, but there are many who would disagree with me: perhaps most of the world, regarding the Crusades, and more every day regarding Nazism. Would their opinion have made mine wrong? Would my opinion have made it right? The important thing is to stand for what you believe to be right, even if the entire world is against you. Yet this, again, can have horrendous results, as in the case of Islamic Jihadists, who firmly believe they are doing service to God by slaughtering and raping infidels. I can see no more reason for the world tolerating this than the British tolerating the Hindu cult of Kali, which strangled thousands in India every year. Yet see how the British themselves have now given in to every aspect of Islam in their own country, rather than being deemed to “hate”. As someone once said of the ancient Romans: “They have made a desert and called it ‘peace’.”
Ren says
@Richard
“Everything is relative”
I am not sure about that. Ideas are perceived by many individuals hence their relativity. But some ideas in themselves must be absolute.
For instance, anything that causes harm to others is considered to be bad. Therefore, jihadi muslims that kill and rape because they firmly believe they are doing service to god are wrong. Killing and raping cause physical and psychological harm. Anyone that sanctions such deeds is wrong even the god of islam. One that claims he kills and rapes in the name of such a god is either stupid, insane or evil. No excuse.
In the case of the Crusades, was it good or bad to kill muslims of the Ottoman Empire? Even though killing in itself is bad, there are times when either you kill or get killed. The decision that one makes is relative but the act of killing is not. No confusion.
isaac says
Utter shit. What age are you? ‘Nice’ would be an example of one of your ideas that are ‘absolute’ in and of themselves. But ‘nice’ varies from culture to culture. In the West it’s ‘nice’ to help someone out, in Islamic lands it’s ‘nice’ to honour kill your daughter. You getting it yet? Everything is relative. Not all people have the same worldview and NOTHING is absolute. If it were, we wouldn’t have philosophy or theology.
Ren says
@isaac
The example you gave to claim that “everything is relative” shows that you are confused.
Words are relative because it is humans that give them meanings. Since there are many humans, different interpretation of a single word occurs. The word “nice” is an adjective. An adjective in itself is subjective because it denotes a quality. It can have as many meanings as there are many people that use it.
On the other hand, the act of killing is a fact. It causes harm, period. Honour killing might be a good thing among muslims, but killing still causes harm. The idea of honour killing as being a good thing is relative, but the act of killing causing harm is absolute.
Get it?
isaac says
Thanks for proving me right
gravenimage says
No, everything is *not* relative. The idea that we should consider the values of Muslim savages of a piece with those of the civilized West is utterly false.
Anne says
Me too. ! I was banned for not giving Mohammed a stellar recommendation as a good human being ! Mohammed ?
mccode says
Well said, Robert.
The mere use of FB is an acquiescence to its nefarious platform. Unfortunately it has permeated the popular culture and now its tentacles have infiltrated so deeply that most of its subscribers (aka sheeple) are as addicted to its usage as a drug addict is to their poison of choice.
If one believes for a moment, following the latest Congressional hearings of the Zuck, any meaningful privacy or restraints will actually be developed and put into place, that is a laughable farce.
Continue to use it at your own peril.
gravenimage says
Actually, Robert Spencer does use Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/JihadWatch/
By the way, the story above was written by Jacob, not Robert Spencer.
Andy says
As long as Mr. Spencer doesn’t get Zuckered into anything! He should be fine 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RD_siQqiT48Tc&v=_siQqiT48Tc
Andy says
FACT CHECKING Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress | Ezra Levant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEeoARYPIB0
Ren says
Hate speech = Free speech, period.
mortimer says
No… Ren, and the judges will have the last word, not you.
Ren says
@mortimer
You mean the liberal judges?
Jan Aage Jeppesen says
Without hate speech there would be no Islam. So the Muslims should be careful what they wish for.
As long as you hate the right people, who deserve it, there is no problem.
Back in 1965 Tom Lehrer made a funny song about love and hate still worth listening to:
“I’m sure we all agree that we ought to love one another,
and I know there are people in the world who do not love
their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!
Here’s a song about National Brotherhood Week:
Oh, the white folks
hate the black folks.
And the black folks,
hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
is an old established rule
But during…
National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horn and Sheriff Clark are dancing cheek to cheek, it’s
fun to eulogize the
people you despise
as long you don’t let them in your school.
Oh, the poor folks, hate the rich folks
and the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks.
It’s american as apple pie.
But during…
National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
New Yorkers Love the Puerto Ricans ’cause it’s very chique
Stand up and shake the hand of
someone you can’t stand
you can tolerate him if you try.
Oh the protestants hate the catholics
and the catholics hate the protestants
and the hindus hate the muslims
and everybody hates the jews, but during
National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week its
national everyone smile at
one another-hood week, be
nice to people who are
inferior to you. it’s only for a week so have no fear
be grateful that it doesn’t last all year.”
gravenimage says
Do you utter “hate speech”?
……………………….
Good piece by Jacob. This just goes to show how subjective and indefinable “hate speech” really is.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Yes. A nice, concise essay. Kudos.
Stop Kafirophobia says
That picture of Cuckerberg always reminds me of a statue of Baphomet for some reason.
JawsV says
“Hate is an emotion. Hate away. I hate the left. I hate Islam.”
Ditto, Jacob.
isaac says
Absolutely.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
The attacks against Christians in Egypt is alarming. The murder of Christians in their Churches at their homes is downright despicable. In every country where Islam is the majority Christians suffer the same fate. Murder, rape, Church destruction, discrimination. is a daily occurrence.
To hide this truth is cowardly. When speaking out against these atrocities, one is labeled racist or one is hateful towards Islam.
Liberals are vocal, the mainstream media, push the narrative of a peaceful and benign religion and people.
Nothing could be more further from the truth in this context.
Is this hate speech to point out the facts?
Is it hate speech to point out the same historical pattern that has occurred throughout the centuries?
No Christian or non believer of Islam is destroying their places of worship, or oppressing, raping or murdering them.
If that happens and we speak up against it, would that be hate speech to the guilty, would the label, racist be applicable then?
Diane says
“Truth hurts”…so in this day and age of “safe spaces” (to protect against hurt feelings), we end up with a world-wide, gated community, with a sign posted inside and outside the gates: “No truth allowed!” People who try to speak the truth, are thrown outside the gates.
mortimer says
Libtardation or political correctness is chiefly a culture of GLEICHSCHALTUNG.
Gleichschaltung is the forcible orientation of all political, social and governmental organizations towards a single political line.
The term Gleichschaltung was created by and for Hitler’s National Socialists and historically has its chief significance in relation to Germany in the 1930s.
The Nazis imposed SYSTEMIC “Gleichschaltung”, in the field of culture and the media in order to consolidate public opinion in support of their sole political control over all public and private associations in Germany. No one could get work, gain licenses or be promoted if they did not submit to “Gleichschaltung”
All pluralism in the public and private life of Germany was eliminated by Gleichschaltung in favor of Hitler’s universal dictatorship.
Libtarded AMERICAN Gleichschaltung is chiefly oriented to ELIMINATING WRONGTHINK from all associations in the USA and replacing it with RED-GREEN-AXIS-THINK.
Japetto Danatelli says
Jacob expressed my same thoughts on the matter wonderfully. There’s a whole new paradigm of thinking among the left that says it’s their job to stamp out “hate.” Never mind that the left are the true haters and are acting on that hate in violence more than anyone. This false crusade against “hate” is really a ruse for enacting draconian policies and laws against our liberties and facilitating the islamic take over of the West. The left has found great joy in suppressing free speech and good morals for islam. I remember a time when rape of kids used to be a crime, but now speaking against it has become the crime. Speaking against religious hate and bigotry used to be a commendable thing, now that too has been deemed a racial crime even though islam is not a race but an ideology. This moral perversion is all around us, on the news, in the schools, in politics, at work, it’s hard to find one place that isn’t infected with this obscene sympathy for a “religion” that wants us dead or enslaved. It defies understanding why so many are eager to destroy our freedoms and safety for a thieving, murdering religious fraud called muhammad. If Charles Manson had created a violent religion that inspired even a few murders it would have been condemned as an insane act for an immoral person. But not islam, that’s a “religion of peace” even though it’s killed and tortured millions. If anyone is “hateful” in all this it’s the pandering leftists helping islam’s jihad agenda. Their actions defy logic and reason and moral understanding. They aren’t truly working for peace because they are supporting an unpeaceful ideology;they aren’t truly trying to create a diverse multicultural society because islam is monocultural and rejects diversity to death;they aren’t truly trying to stamp out hate because their own actions are hateful in defense of a hateful ideology.
Our leftist traitors have decided that crime and bigotry in the name of religion is worth more than our rights and security in a democratic society. They are the true haters in all this, not us. I know what true hate is; and it ain’t those who speak against murder and bigotry for religion, it’s those who support it with lies, excuses, and intimidation.
JawsV says
Anyone who calls Islam a “religion of peace” is an ignorant idiot. Like Geo W Bush after 9/11, a know-nothing about Islam.
Japetto Danatelli says
Yeah, an “idiot,” or worse. Like maybe an evil supremacist that wants to destroy peace and freedom for a demonic religion. It’s hard in today’s world to not know about the evil islam spawns every day. So if their excuse is that they’re an idiot then they must truly be the biggest idiot one can be. Either way they’re a danger to civilized society and must be removed from power.
mariam rove says
Who the hell is Zuckerberg to decide what is or is not hate speech anyways. M
brane pilot says
When factual Truth can be labeled as ‘hate speech’ because the facts do not fit a narrative or agenda, the First Amendment to the US Constitution has been abrogated. All other rights will soon disappear with it.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“He was then given stats that revealed that 40% of Americans under the age of 35 all agreed that saying anything that could possibly hurt another person’s feelings should be censored and punishable.”
Could so many young Americans misunderstand their constitutional rights (and obligations to tolerate unpopular speech)? If so, the American democracy/republic is in a bad state.
gravenimage says
This stupidity is flooged endlessly at college campuses.
Of course, this simply isn’t possible–nor should it be a goal.
By the way, I personally find such views offensive and hurtful–but I am not demanding that these fools be censored and punished.
Kilfincelt says
I just received my spring 2018 issue of my university alumnus magazine in which an article regarding free speech vs. hate speech on the college campus was included. What follows is my letter to the editor regarding it:
I read the recent article in the ___ Alumnus regarding free speech with some disgust. I agree that the university should be a place of safety and tolerance; however, that should never be at the expense of our right to freedom of speech as defined by the law.
The university is supposed to be a place where open debate is sacrosanct even when the ideas expressed are offensive. If students feel violated or even emotionally or mentally threatened by such opinions, then the university has a responsibility to teach them that safe spaces, name calling, violence, and/or bombastic language add nothing to the conversation because one of the main objectives of a university education is to open student’s minds to other positions and possibilities, not close them. Failure to do so will just encourage these students to continue to use these tactics of intimidation to silence their critics and will make the university more unsafe and intolerant of those with differing points of view.
Further, when violence breaks out because of some objection to the speaker’s opinions or ideas, the perpetrators of the violence and the perpetrators alone should be held responsible rather than the speaker. The focus of the university should be to stop these violent acts and not stop the free exchange of ideas no matter how unpopular they are. If an opinion or idea is bad, then it is best exposed to the light of day where it can be refuted through well-reasoned argument.
As for the term “hate speech”, what constitutes “hate speech”? Who gets to play God and define it because what is hate speech to one person may be truth to another and, in fact, may be the truth? The fact is that the subjective nature of the term makes it very difficult to define. Nevertheless, those who wish to put limits on our First Amendment rights often use it as a tactic to shut down debate, sometimes at the expense of truth. The lack of courage of university administrators in the face of such intimidation is astounding. They are supposed to be the adults in the room and the protector of free speech; yet, many cower in fear of those who would subvert the goal of the university to educate rather than indoctrinate.
Japetto Danatelli says
Well I would question the efficacy of such a letter because it’s too intelligent. We’re not dealing with sane, rational people here. These leftist baboons have decided that the onus is not on those who act violent in response to an opposing view, it’s on those who express the view. Free speech is no longer held to the usual standards of morality and truthfulness, instead it’s judged by how loud and angry the listener responds to what’s being said. If something irritates you or makes you angry, no matter how truthful it may be, then you are a victim entitled to wail like a banshee and get it suppressed. It’s the heckler’s veto born of political correctness run amok. This brutal censorship can easily end up a human rights violation of the worst kind. If you deny people the right to speak about matters of importance, like violence in religion for example, then you enable those crimes by hindering effective action against it. This is how our media and politicians and educational system are encouraging islamic jihad, by lying on its behalf and crushing any opposition to it. It’s a crime and a sin. You intelligently as the question, “Who gets to play God and define it because what is hate speech to one person may be truth to another.” Well obviously it’s muslims and their leftist allies that get to play god. They see themselves as the most fit to determine what’s best spoken about the sick and depraved ideology they defend, kinda like the fox guarding the henhouse. Like a lot of us you have a perfect understanding of the extreme bias and hypocrisy these universities have against free speech when it dares speak the truth about islam. I seriously doubt they gave a hoot about your letter. I bet they chuckled as they threw it in the garbage.
Kilfincelt says
Thank you! I had to try although I am sure it will never be printed. I had previously written something similar to the university president in which I used Islam as an example of truth being condemned as hate speech. I did get back a reply that my opinion would be passed on to the president. Needless to say, I didn’t hold my breath.
gravenimage says
+1
Save Europe says
Zuzkerberg should read the Koran to see hate speech in full flow.
Diane says
Great idea! He’d see many passages that teach Muslms to kill Jews, like himself. I wonder if that would qualify as hate speech, in his view.
Bezelel says
My take on it isn’t about defining hate speech. It’s about some self appointed knowitall trying to assert control without holding an elected office. I hate people who do that. zuckface can go to hell. I did not nor would I vote for his punk a-ss to run anything. His product is infiltrating the internet, I have to use a script blocker just to keep out what I can. Elitist control freak of the worst kind.
Diane says
Thank you, Jacob, for this post. Much of it reflects the thoughts/feelings, I’ve had for years. No one can legislate the heart.
isaac says
Yes, mine too.
Dwight Hogg says
Yes I utter hate speech – I hate what Islam is doing to the world. I hate the hate, violence, slaughter, rapes of women and children, misogyny, FGM, Imams in Canada calling for the death of Jews, Imams saying that marrying 10 year old children is fine, alQuds parades going through Toronto proclaiming their violence and hatred of just about everything our country stands for. And I hate Sharia Law which many, many Muslims living here believe is superior to our democratic values. And I hate the Muslims in our Govt who are determined to shut down free speech by proclaiming that any criticism of Islam or Muslims is hate speech. I hate people like Omar Alghabra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his support for the likes of Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood. He also brought a hate preacher to Canada and then tried to weasel his way out by trying to claim he didn’t know the views this dirtbag was espousing
Jedothek says
Here are two definitions that may be useful when talking with someone who uses the term hate speech too broadly:
hate speech : speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people (merriam-webster)
Hate speech is talk that attacks an individual or a specific group based on a protected attribute such as the target’s sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability, color, or country of origin (legal dictionary )
Note that I am not saying that either of these should be illegal.
Lydia Church says
Even further, hate can be good.
We are told in the Bible to ‘hate evil.’
It is okay to hate hitler and those like him.
Even violence is sometimes sanctioned.
Going after the nazis involved some forms of violence.
And it put a stop to evil.
Sometimes more violence is not the answer, and it depends on the circumstances.
But some even see spanking a naughty child as ‘violence,’ but it is called for also in the Bible, and rightly so!
It is not even ‘hate,’ or ‘violence’ that are the problem. The issue is what do we hate and what to we fight against? Good, or evil?
And academically as well as otherwise, we have the right to critique and question anything.
We have the human right to criticize and hate anything we want.
We do not have to agree with or like anything. That is our choice.
If that ‘hurts your feelings,’ well boo-hoo, go cry in a corner with a blanket and come back when you can tolerate that others have the right to their own opinion.
shoehorn says
Glad someone said it; you can’t make emotion a crime.