Sunday, March 08, 2015

Once again, someone from another bloody country tells us

that our 1st Amendment should actually mean 'except when your speech is hate speech, then you can go to jail for it.'
...The United Nations, the European Union, and the Council of Europe all require member countries to institute strong laws against hate speech. Every single human rights group in existence strongly supports hate speech laws and continually works to have them expanded. All countries now have laws against hate speech. 

All countries, that is, except for the United States.
And here we go.  Tell me, how much speech about damn near ANYTHING could be banned under this?
Civilized, human rights-based countries not only have laws against hate speech, but also laws against things like insults, Holocaust denial, voicing approval of terrorist attacks, indecent depictions of violence, disparaging the memory of deceased persons, the dissemination of offensive ideas, and other forms of speech that violate the basic human rights and human dignity of others.
INSULTS, for Gods' sake...  Gee, Silverstein, who gets to define all this?  Is saying "Hitler and Stalin were both murdering, torturing, racist socialist bastards" an insult, or does that get a pass(wouldn't surprise me if the Hitler part is ok, but stating facts about Stalin would be out of bounds)?

What many Americans don’t seem to understand is that failing to pass laws against hate speech not only violates fundamental human rights, but also explicitly violates international law. The US has signed and ratified the ICCPR and the ICERD and, as such, is required to implement sanctions on hate speech.
Bullshit; the treaties were signed, but the part about restricting speech were reserved, because THEY VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTION AND RIGHTS.  Deal with it.

And this is priceless:
Like any intelligent and sensible person, I have always been a dedicated champion of freedom of speech, especially when it’s speech that many people do not want to hear. To quote Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
like all rights, it comes with many responsibilities and it must be used constructively. ...As any human rights lawyer can tell you, the human right to freedom of speech must be balanced against other human rights, such as the human rights to dignity, respect, and non-discrimination. Your rights end where the rights of others begin.

Screw you.  Your markers mean ANY speech that ANYONE finds somehow offensive can be banned.  Which is why we tell you to go piss up a rope.  Or take a long walk on a short dock.  And other ways of saying 'Piss off'.

And then we get to some of the usual stuff we've come to expect:
Thousands of people are killed each year because of the gun lobby’s propaganda manipulating public opinion against sensible gun bans,...
Defending one of the basic enumerated rights in the Constitution is hate speech and should be banned.
Oh, and Silverstein?  You just committed hate speech against people supporting the 2nd Amendment; what is your sentence?
There isn’t a single person in Europe, Canada, Australia, or anywhere else outside of America who thinks that there shouldn’t be ANY laws against hate speech, vilification, or incitement to hatred.
Really?  NOBODY else in the world believes unfettered speech is a good thing?
Just like freedom of speech doesn’t protect death threats, freedom of speech also doesn’t protect hateful, hurtful, or offensive speech.
A: As a defender of the 2nd Amendment and unfettered free speech, you offended me, bitch.  Hie thyself off to jail.
B: Once more: who gets to define 'hateful, hurtful, or offensive'?  You and the other nasty little nanny-state clowns?
Why does the Japanese far-right respect fundamental human rights more than American “liberals” do?
They LIKE the idea of being able to restrict speech; actual liberals don't.  Moron.
Just as freedom of speech does not protect the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, it also should not protect the right to spout hatred and intolerance, to oppose human rights, to perpetuate toxic systems of privilege and oppression, or to argue against the common good.
A: You CAN shout that in a theater; if it's a false alarm, you can face penalties for it.
B: Again: WHO gets to define 'intolerance', 'hatred', 'toxic systems', and 'common good'?  You mean it to be done by bigots and control freaks like yourself; no, thank you.

And now we get to one of the real prizes in this totalitarian wish list:
One of the core aspects of human rights is that all rights and freedoms are gifts granted to us from the United Nations and from human rights law, and that all rights and freedoms must be balanced against other rights and freedoms. Freedoms need to be restricted or removed when they interfere with other freedoms. This is a principle that the United States completely fails to understand.
Let me put this in bold: FUCK YOU.  Our Constitution notes that rights such as free speech, the right to arms, the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure are OURS.  They damn well do NOT come from the Gods-damned UN, and if the UN wants to take them away, fight's on, bitch.  Especially when you want to shove this down our throats:
Freedom of speech exists so that citizens can have a civil, polite, constructive, and respectful conversation about ideas worth discussing – NOT so that privileged bigots can spew venomous hatred at the most vulnerable and marginalized segments of society. Under the guise of “freedom of speech,” America is giving a voice to people who should never be heard in the first place.
Back to
A: WHO decides if an idea is worth discussing?
B: WHO decides who's the delicate flowers of 'vulnerable and marginalized' who can't survive hearing something they don't like?
C: The big one: WHO decides whether an idea SHOULD BE HEARD OR NOT?
You?  The UN? 
Fuck You, one and all.

More reason to say that with flourishes:
Freedom of speech should never be a license to insult, offend, disrespect, oppose human rights, undermine progress, or incite hatred. Racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, climate change denial, vaccine denial, anti-feminism, cultural appropriation, xenophobia, ableism, anti-multiculturalism, transphobia, and all other forms of bigotry are not “thoughts” or “opinions.” They are crimes, and all civilized countries already treat them as such.
Someone says something you don't like?  Label it not a thought, but a crime.  With people like this tyrant wannabe doing the defining and deciding.  No, thank you.

The United Nations and human rights groups have stressed many times that these laws do not in any way interfere with the sacred right to freedom of speech.
Because anything they don't approve of is labeled 'Not speech, but a crime'. 

By the way, the idea of allowing the UN, an organization known for corruption, turning away from actual horrible crimes(like the massacre in Rwanda), excusing tyrants, excusing hatred of Jews, 'peacekeepers' running child brothels and other activities  the power to decide who can say what is horrifying.

Which is why we have some of those fine illustrations this idiot would put us in jail for displaying, such as

1 comment:

KM said...

The United Nations, the European Union, and the Council of Europe

All of them are as worthless as the Asshat in Chief currently living in public housing.