Archives for posts with tag: Freedom of Speech

One of the greatest tragedies of the modern age is social media: a technology that begs for greater human connection seems only to divide and isolate us. We have unprecedented access to one another, and we use that access to police behaviour and get in furious arguments about female Ghostbusters. Further tragedy is that the “debate” of the digital age is not about privacy and security since we all seem fairly blasé about that access being sold to advertisers and stolen by defense companies, but instead we “debate” free speech and censorship. I would be air-quoting the shit out of “debate” if I were vocally delivering this message, but this is text, so I hope the intense sarcasm that I’m intending is conveyed in regular quotation marks.

It’s not a debate. It’s idiots howling at one another in futile rage and impotence. It’s one side getting upset that they can’t publicly hate women anymore, and the other getting people’s lives ruined for a misinterpreted joke. The defendants of free speech are championing the hatred of women since to condemn it would obviously be censorship. The prosecutors of hatred see it everywhere, and use the public commons of social media to use their collective power to silence it, regardless of its legitimacy as actual hatred. They are warring groups of ravenous wolves that have a collective intellect smaller than those same groups of wolves.

I’ve written about free speech before, and don’t intend to dwell on it this time. I want to look instead at censorship as it relates to social media since the greatest attack on libtard regressives, feminazis, SJWs, and leftist cucks is their blind acceptance of the elimination of a basic human freedom: freedom of speech. The elimination of free speech is to some extent rightly decried as fascist, and so accusations of hypocrisy are leveled at those who use the same criticism against Donald Trump and his followers.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the left is promoting censorship. They are. It’s not a difficult assumption. But let’s assume it is censorship to such a degree that it is a fascist repression of hapless misogynists who have a God-given right to hate whomever they please. Censorship in the context of fascism is used to maintain the grossly imbalanced power structures of society. Dictators censor newspapers because they don’t want dissenting opinions contradicting their rule. If a ruler tried to discredit the media when they are critical of him, or tried to change the laws to reduce their effectiveness, that would be fascist censorship.

So what about those on social media? Fascism necessitates the clandestine perpetuation of power, so which power structures are being maintained by libtards on Twitter? What kind of power do ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ community, women, etc. have that they would use censorship to maintain? And I don’t mean shit like ‘Obama was president for eight years,’ because Obama is not the King of the Blacks. Since leftist cucks started oppressing poor, defenseless bigots, has the percentage of black people in prisons gone down? Have transgendered people gained a significant influx in senate seats? Are fewer women being grabbed by the pussy? How have poverty rates changed along gender and racial lines? What are the statistics saying? Given that hate crimes are on the rise against these demographics, I would say that the power that they’re perpetuating is depressingly inconsequential.

That’s not to say it isn’t completely negligible. On an individual level, people are losing their jobs. Their lives are being scrutinized, pilloried, and publicly shamed by a mob justice that relies solely on sensationalized stories that are very unlikely to be a reflection of real events or attitudes. This mob justice even has some degree of power on the mezzo level, as organizations will often pay the proper lip service in order to maintain appropriate PR. However, this mezzo level is only a veneer of appeasement. Companies and politicians will claim to be feminist or whatever, and might even put out memes to present an image of conformity to the ideological rigidity of the social media left, but in practice will continue as they always have. It does not take much to soothe the vitriol of morons if you get in early enough. Beyonce could shoot someone on 5th avenue alongside Donald Trump and lose just as many followers. Since the only demand is ideological conformity and not any significant change, most companies and leaders are content to say whatever the mob desires, since their behaviour will always escape unscathed.

You know, shifting the social dialogue to focus on SJWs on Youtube and Twitter and how they’re stamping out free speech instead of parsing the admittedly deeply buried subtext of what they’re trying to say could be a way of maintaining dominant power structures that are victimizing minorities in the first place. Which group holds power when we purposefully ignore what the disenfranchised are saying? If we found a way to distract from what the left is saying, rather than address it, then the status quo could very well continue unabated. Which censorship is thus the more fascist? The censorship, or the censorship of the censorship?

So no, fascist censorship does not exist on social media, sorry. If you’re worried about the stifling of intellectual debate, since the merits of white supremacy surely require that degree of respect, don’t fucking have an intellectual debate on social media.

The big news of the day seems to be the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and what has erupted is a big hullabaloo about free speech, and how it is necessary and super awesome and how all the cool kids have it. However, there is a catch: it is a packaged deal that allows terrible people to espouse their terrible opinions.

America is the prime example of this. America is a country that allows a certain crazy-as-fuck family to protest the funerals of soldiers, not because they’re against war, but because they believe that God is punishing America for not murdering all the gay people. The belief is that if we disallow people to say crazy, offensive and oppressive shit, all of a sudden we won’t be able to say bad things about the government and we will literally become Stalinist Russia.

In Canada, however, we have hate speech laws that forbid certain aspects of speech. For example, that crazy-as-fuck family is not allowed into our country. We also can’t spray-paint swastikas on synagogues for reasons other than trespassing or defacing private property. The idea behind hate speech laws is that when people engage in hate speech, it propagandizes that belief, normalizes it, and either incites violence or fosters apathy towards other violence that might be going on elsewhere. For example, if you were exposed to the open and unquestioned public ridicule of Islam, you might be more apathetic to the subjugation of the Palestinian people. Think of it like anti-bullying. It would be like if the suicide of Amanda Todd went unpunished, as the man who harassed her was merely expressing his freedom of speech. Or if sexual harassment laws were merely suggestions rather than the rule.

Anwar al-Awlaki is an American who quite voraciously engaged in hate speech against the USA. He was a normal, everyday Imam that was actually interviewed as a moderate Muslim after the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, but became disenfranchised with the West, to say the least, and went over to join Al-Qaeda. Anwar al-Awlaki’s main function was to serve as an English-speaking mouthpiece for the organization, and he espoused all sorts of terrible things: saying America sucked and deserved bad things to happen to it, this and that, you know, regular terrorist-y type stuff. The US, recognizing the power of hate speech, sent al-Awlaki a firm cease and desist order via the courts to put an end to his widespread hate-mongering. This surprised the world because America is so firm on its beliefs in regards to freedom of speech, and to impinge on someone’s right to vocalize their hatred goes dead-against those beliefs.

Of course I am kidding. America straight-up murdered Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike, and then drone-striked his teenage son. They’re dead now. They didn’t get a trial.

So it seems that America doesn’t really love its free speech as much as it might think. Even outside of the extrajudicial assassination of its own citizens, people are punished socially for hate speech all the time. Has Michael Richards had work since he called that heckler a “nigger”? Wasn’t the owner of the Clippers banned from the NBA after he made a racist comment? The social cost for hate speech is quite high, and the completely insincere public apologies that inevitably follow are proof that pure free speech does not exist, even in the States.

Is that bad? Well, killing folks for talking is probably a little much, as both the Charlie Hebdo and Anwar al-Awlaki incidents are both horrific tragedies in their own separate ways, but I believe that quashing hate speech trumps freedom of speech. Perpetuating oppression and instigating violence/hatred are, you know, bad things. If you believe that those are necessary evils for civil discourse and dissent, well here’s a little test for you. Since this began with a cartoon, let’s see if you can tell the difference between these two images:

AntisemitismCriticism of Israel

To the untrained eye, these two images appear identical. However, upon closer examination, one can be identified as hate speech, and the other as criticism. See if you can work out for yourselves which is which.

The common example of an acceptable exception to the rule of free speech is yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded movie theatre. I honestly don’t know how this example came to be, because honestly why a movie theatre? Why not just a generic room? But anyway, the idea is that it would cause a panic and could potentially injure somebody. Yelling “FIRE!” is usually done for superficial or trivial reasons, without much logic behind it. So superficial reasoning leading to potentially injurious actions is an exception to free speech. To me, that sounds an awful lot like hate speech, especially if the intent is the injurious actions.

Post-script: I don’t know how much this is actually in contention, but a depiction of Mohammed, especially a vile one, would be considered hate speech. Islam has a long, proud history of avoiding imagery in its art, and has made-do with beautiful text-based artwork. There have been a few exceptions to this rule, but to trivialize the anti-idol mandate of the Quran is to be ignorant of the history of that belief, as well as to purposefully disrespect, degrade, and further disenfranchise the already internationally ostracized culture of Islam.