“Take your meds before reading,” warns Kathy Shaidle about a Times of Israel column by “human rights activist” Dinah Silverstein:
In the world today, it is universally accepted that hate speech is not free speech. International human rights law . . . mandates legal protections 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. In the US, all manner of hateful and discriminatory expression is permitted under the guise of “freedom of speech.” . . .
(Permit me to interrupt here to exercise my First Amendment freedom to say damn “the world today” and damn “human rights.”)
[T]he US steadfastly refuses to protect vulnerable minorities from even the most extreme forms of hate speech. In the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court even ruled that KKK members have the right to advocate violence against minorities as “free speech.” . . .
(Violence is illegal. However, proving that Hateful Statement A led to Violent Felony B can be problematic, which is what Brandenburg was really about. Please continue, Ms. Silverstein.)
Human rights groups have complained for decades about America’s failure to enact laws against hate speech and the UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly expressed deep concern about America’s refusal to protect vulnerable minorities from hate speech, but nothing has ever been done to remedy the problem. . . .
(Even “human rights” whiners are protected by the First Amendment.)
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.
(And while we’re at it, damn “international law.”)
More recently, racist hate speech against Muslims inspired Anders Behring Breivik to slaughter 77 people in Norway, while hate speech from the likes of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh incited right-wing extremist Jared Lee Loughner to go on a shooting spree in Arizona.
STOP RIGHT THERE, YOU DESPICABLE LIAR!
- Loughner was not a “right-wing extremist”;
and - His apparent inspiration was a 9/11 Truther conspiracy film.
Read “Jared Loughner’s Zeitgeist Obsession” if you want to learn about the anti-Christian, anti-capitalism paranoid cult “documentary” that evidently “incited” the Tucson massacre:
“I really think that this Zeitgeist documentary had a profound impact upon Jared Loughner’s mindset and how he views the world that he lives in,” Zach Osler, 22, told ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield. Osler’s father confirmed that influence in an interview published Sunday by the Arizona Republic. “He wanted to watch [Zeitgeist] all the time,” George Osler told the Phoenix newspaper. “It was cool at first. But then it got weird. It was all he wanted to do.”
Please read the whole thing. I spent about three or four days in January 2011 researching the background on Loughner and the Zeitgeist cult. As I complained at the time, once evidence emerged that Loughner was not a “right-wing extremist” — rather quite the opposite — everybody in the major media mysteriously lost interest in his motives. Hey, if they couldn’t promote hatred of Christianity and hatred of capitalism, what would liberal journalists do for a living?
The world if full of “international law” and “human rights” and every other species of dishonest evil, and if America alone stands against this dangerous tide of tyranny, so be it.
“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786
If any lying “human rights activist” thinks they can stop me from telling the truth, they’d better bring a damned army.
If Hillary becomes president you can bet we’ll be signing on to restrictions of ”hate speech” and blasphemy laws.
This is a rehash of an article she posted months ago. At least now we have a picture of her.
Anyway, she’s only interested in manipulating public opinion for her causes.
In the world today, it is universally accepted that hate speech is not free speech.
I reject your premise Miss Silverstein.
1- On what grounds can you say this is “universally accepted”
2- More importantly the term “hate speech” is a floating abstraction (a concept or idea which is cut off from reality). In practice “hate speech” is an idea which PC thought police disagree with. The term itself is crafted to make a person jump to an emotional conclusion without engaging the faculty of reason, thus you will be branded “pro-hate” if you express any reservations just like anyone against feminist campus kangaroo courts is branded “pro-rape”
Her argument rings as hollow as the “dissent is patriotic” arguments presented by the leftists against Bush to justify some of the most moronic and hateful rhetoric in response to the support he received in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. Dissent against Booosh / BusHitler was partriotic, dissent against 0bama is RAAAAAIST!!1!!
It is hate speech to accuse Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh of inciting the Gabby Giffords shooting. Silverstein should arrest herself.
Funny, all the comments at the article seem to be hate speech. No one agrees with her. Arrest them all now!!!!!
No.
The premises are wrong. The cure for bad speech is more speech.
She’s plug ugly and looks like a dude. How’s that for a little good old fashioned American hate speech. Haters gonna hate.
N.B. the rhetorical sleight of hand:
[T]he US steadfastly refuses to protect vulnerable minorities from even the most extreme forms of hate speech. (My emphasis)
In classic Leftist fashion, only “vulnerable minorities” are to be protected. This excludes presumably the Jews, who are a minority but control the world through a shadowy cabal. Further, this excludes everyone else, because evil can only be perpetrated by those in power. It’s the same canard used to assert than only Caucasians can be guilty of racism. Finally, the status of “vulnerable” and “minority” is one which is self-defined and which, undoubtedly, will exclude anyone who argues in favor of traditional Western values and mores.
[…] Columnist Uses Libel in ‘Hate Speech’ Attack on First Amendment Rights […]
The push for internationalism is now here in full force. Consider this the shot across the bow. The next progressive president will have us fully under the authority of international law and the Constitution will be a byword.
I don’t think Jeb would be much different except in wording.
How can you say “universally accepted” and follow it up with “The United States refuses…”?
Dinah Silverstein? Did someone say “Dinah Silverstein”?
http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/terms-images/writers/Dinah-Silverstein-medium.jpg
Wow, talk about butch. There be whales, captain!
Miss Silverman is correct: all of the other liberal democracies on this planet do have laws which restrict, and punish, speech based solely on content. People have actually gone to jail for Holocaust denial.
The sad part is that a good number of Americans (probably) agree with her(?).¹ We can see it here, now, with all sorts of idiotic campus “speech codes” and the like, and with the Democrats trying to pass a constitutional amendment to limit political speech.
_________________________
¹ – The definitely intended implication that Miss Silverman looks like a dyke at best, and possibly a tranny, is clearly hate speech by me, and I willingly accept any and all denunciations which flow therefrom.
The lovely Miss Silverstein wrote:
Another factual error: as nearly as can be determined by the people actually investigating the case, Mr Hicks shot three people who happened to be Muslims in an irrational dispute over parking spaces.
It would seem that Miss Silverstein isn’t much of a journalist: it doesn’t take much checking over that internet thingy Al Gore invented to have discovered what Mr Hicks’ motives probably were, but it apparently took more checking than Miss Silverstein did.
Lets be real they don’t care if anyone hates what they care about is WHO one hates!
Fortunately, Miss Silverstein has, under our Constitution, the freedom to not live in the United States and under our laws, and I am happy that she has chosen to exercise that freedom.
Fascists don’t care about truth
No, they care about whom they think one hates; no actual evidence is required.
True but they REALLY want people to hate white heteronormative Christian conservatives who have guns
wow, this lady is getting blown up in the article’s comments section.
my faith in humanity just went up a few points.
[…] Columnist Uses Libel in “Hate Speech” Attack on First Amendment Rights “Take your meds before reading,” warns Kathy Shaidle about a Times of Israel column by “human rights activist” Dinah Silverstein […]
This is where my American-ness would allow me to cast some snark your way regarding the Capo Calipari in Lexington.
Instead, I shall take the high road and congratulate UK on its undefeated season. : )
Der Ewige Juden! What a completely digusting piece of filth; a true stalinistic, totalitarian jew oppressor, not able to moderate its natural predisposition to wanting to enslave and control other people. She even claims TWELVE million jews were lampshaded in the concentration camps during the Holohoax, now…it keeps on getting more ridiculous by the day.
I’ll say this because I am female so I “can”:
She needs to buy the Magic Wand with the off-brand dildo attachment.
‘Sayin’…
Also she said something about “Not one person in Canada is against laws against hate speech.”
I am “one person” and can easily produce quite a few more like me.
Discuss.
[…] Columnist Uses Libel in ‘Hate Speech’ Attack on First Amendment Rights. […]
Right on cue, the antisemites appear.
I knew it was going to be vile when he kicked off the article with your scare warning.
p.s. Love your books. Time for another one, isn’t it?
But yet, even his speech is protected. God bless America.
And yet, I assume that the UN Human Rights Council wouldn’t classify anti-semitic or anti-Christian speech as hateful.
I think that it’s condescending and hateful to define minorities as “vulnerable”, as if they’re all helpless little toddlers. I denounce Ms. Silverstein as a racist. And an insufferable liberal.
You hit it right on the nose. No moral concept is “universally accepted,” otherwise, we wouldn’t need judges, or laws, for that matter.
Right you are. I think I might go get my Bibles and guns out for a few minutes and enjoy them while I’m still allowed to.
Any self-respecting “gentile” is an “antisemite” in today’s society.
Listen to the moronic ideology that goes after the white straight male 365 days a year. Let me reduce this to a microcosm and take away the con game about “vulnerable minorities.” In the science fiction community, there is constant talk about about racism, sexism and phobia against the only 2 human groups that can legitimately be considered to be the victims of hate speech: sex and ethnicity. The problem for social justice warriors like Silverstein who deal aces from the bottom of the power/privilege deck is that if you went by a truly neutral definition of hate speech and harassment, and made it illegal, by my reckoning at least 90% of the people prosecuted would be social justice warriors themselves.
That is because they are the ones prosecuting straight white males in their millions merely for existing. In turn their evidence for the racism and bigotry of straight white males isn’t in speech or purposeful segregation but rests entirely on demographic spikes like a lot of white people in a photo or at a convention or men getting more books reviews. In other words SJWs say a photo with a lot of white men is the same as the n-word. Meanwhile the amount of actual racial slurs from SJWs is massive and nothing as innocent as an accidental demographic spike. SJWs have done a thing straight white males are not doing: segregating rooms, anthologies and awards by race and sex. There is your SJW “law.” There is nothing like demonization theories about blacks, women and gays coming from straight white males that can match “white privilege” and “rape culture.” This is a stacked deck with two completely different standards which is – surprise – hate speech. Demography and ideology change definitions at will in SJW-land.
As for Canada, their speech rights seems like an Orwellian nightmare of a dystopia to me. We all know what happens when hate speech is made illegal: only so-called “vulnerable minorities” are protected. You can say anything you want about white straight males and skate clean away. That’s not law but the institutionalization of hate speech.
If you want to see hate speech the best place to see it is any social justice warrior Twitter feed. They make no secret of their hatred for whites, men and heterosexuals. They talk about “white savior” movies as if they are using a binding principle all can benefit by. But apply that same principle to “black saviors” in sports and we’re back to racism. That’s because the worst expressions of institutionalized hate speech in America come from those very “vulnerable minorities” for the simple reason they’ve allocated a free-fire zone of racism and bigotry to themselves using massive double standards.
If you want to see hate speech read Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian. Each goes after men, whites and heterosexuals, not content. As a Jew, you’d think Silverstein would understand the difference between critiquing Hollywood films and critiquing the Jewish producers and actors who make those films.
It looks like Dinah Silverstein is a sockpuppet.
https://twitter.com/nancygoldstein
Jeb would make far better supreme court nominees and his foreign policy would be far better.
I’m glad the so-called “progressives” are finally coming out of the closet and admitting right up front that they’re opposed to freedom of speech.
Personally I consider all these countries with hate speech laws and other forms of speech restriction extremely backwards and uncivilized but that is just me.
I’m glad the so-called “progressives” are finally coming out of the closet and admitting right up front that they’re opposed to freedom of speech.
So she’s claiming that Myanmar, People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, Russian Federation, etc. have all enacted hate speech laws designed to protect vulnerable minorities?
Why am I feeling skeptical about this woman and the truthfulness of her claims?
Shaidle’s use of “kyke dyke” is good parody because it highlights how intersectional radical feminism has created new slurs which hide behind a sheen of fake academia like “cis male” and “white privilege.” There is no doubt of the disdain for tens of millions of human beings that reside behind such words or that they are meant as plain insults. In power/privilege theory a slur is a slur is a slur, etc.
Criticizing an ideology is not incitement. Criticizing a race is. That’s why two dead police officers in Brooklyn can be laid at the feet of social justice warriors. Their incitement against whites is vile and 365 days a year.
The blade of hate speech cuts only one way and soon enough the definition of hate speech would include dissent by anyone who stands up for decency.
That would depend on whether she indulges in supremacist rhetoric which attaches morality to her sexual identity and robs it from others. If she’s just a lesbian with principles that’s just a human. If the other it’s a KKK.
Overthrow our enemies and sow chaos and upheavel is not a better foreign policy. As for nominees, given what Jeb says his priorities are, I will remain skeptical.
“Human Rights” has become a codeword used by the radical left. It basically means the suppression of individual liberty. Any time you hear a leftist talk about “human rights”, you are being conned.
I love the way Silverstein invokes law when she obviously has no idea of what principles create law.
The concept of “fair” is more symbolic than anything else when it comes to a social justice warrior.
“Well, she lacks credibility.”
This is odd indeed.
Two months ago, another ostensibly Jewish female — one “Tanya Cohen” — posted a virtually identical piece on ThoughtCatalog:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/01/here-is-why-its-time-to-get-tough-on-hate-speech-in-america/
The piece went viral, and pretty much every commentator and site that linked it agreed the woman was nuts.
So now we have the Times of Israel publishing a screed by a “Dinah Silverstein”, whom ChandlersGhost pegged as using the same photo portrait as one “Nancy Goldstein” — a “Communications Director” at NY State’s far-Left Working Families Party. The “Silverstein” piece uses the same wording, rhetoric, and outright nonsense that the “Cohen” one did back in January, although it’s somewhat more moderate in that it doesn’t call for 25-to-life sentences for people using h8y-h8r speech.
What the hell is going on here? Is this some complex private joke? A test of meme-creation to gradually ease the Internet into the acceptance of these insane views? Or some sort of stealthy anti-Semitic trolling, identifying totalitarian speech-codes with Jewish-female “human rights activists”?
“More recently, racist hate speech against Muslims inspired Anders Behring Breivik to slaughter 77 people in Norway,”
Erm… Weren’t the victims white? #WarOnWhites? #OpressedMajority?