![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/tolerant-liberal.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The lasted moron to push this is an alleged journalist and a former editor of Time. His name is Richard Stengel and he thinks we should just institute government censorship and punish anyone who says something he doesn\u2019t like. Here is his column in the Washington Compost<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of \u201cInformation Wars<\/a>\u201d and was the State Department\u2019s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016.<\/b><\/p>\n In other words, he is a Progressive Globalist hack who thinks he\u2019s smarter then everyone else. Check!<\/p>\n When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.\u2019s assertion<\/a> that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting \u201cfree thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?<\/b><\/p>\n Considering you and your master, Barack Obama essentially kowtowed to Iran, I can see why you would have difficulty in comprehending the reasons for the First Amendment. Also, in most of the Islamic world, you intentionally torch a Koran, they will execute you. Burning a bible or a Torah is just hunky dory though.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a fair question.<\/strong><\/p>\n No dumbass, it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Yes, the First Amendment protects the \u201cthought that we hate,\u201d but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.<\/b><\/p>\n A design flaw? No, it isn\u2019t a \u2018Design flaw,\u201d it\u2019s a feature numbnuts.<\/p>\n It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn\u2019t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia\u2019s Internet Research Agency<\/a> planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did. Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment. <\/b><\/p>\n So what? I remember some of those stories. I found them amusing. You see, I have a brain, common sense and I like to verify things, something you, as a \u201cJournalist\u201d can\u2019t be bothered to do. Nope, you just take the press handout and that\u2019s as far as you go in your research.<\/p>\n The Russians understood that our free press and its reflex toward balance and fairness would enable Moscow to slip its destructive ideas into our media ecosystem. When Putin said back in 2014<\/a> that there were no Russian troops in Crimea \u2014 an outright lie \u2014 he knew our media would report it, and we did. <\/b><\/p>\n And did you losers bother to actually go to the Crimea and look around? I think the safe answer would be \u201cAre you kidding? You mean leave my nice comfy cube\/office and actually go into the field where I may not be able to get any Evian water<\/a> or a pumpkin spice double latte with a foamy whipped cream topping or something? (FYI, I loathe Starbucks and drink my coffee black with no sugar the way God and nature intended)<\/p>\n That\u2019s partly because the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era. The amendment rests on the notion that the truth will win out in what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas called \u201cthe marketplace of ideas.\u201d This \u201cmarketplace\u201d model has a long history going back to 17th-century English intellectual John Milton, but in all that time, no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood.<\/b><\/p>\n So let me guess? You think that only certain people who have spent many years being educated at only the finest schools can determine what is a falsehood and what the truth is? Someone like you perhaps?<\/p>\n Milton, an early opponent of censorship, said truth would prevail in a \u201cfree and open encounter<\/a>.\u201d A century later, the framers believed that this marketplace was necessary for people to make informed choices in a democracy. Somehow, magically, truth would emerge. The presumption has always been that the marketplace would offer a level playing field. But in the age of social media, that landscape is neither level nor fair.<\/b><\/p>\n I hate to break it to you, but life isn\u2019t fair. I\u2019m also seeing a trend here. You seem to think that these major league scholars who believed in free speech were to stupid to see that technology might advance. Let me guess? You would be one of those who, at the time, would have thought the printing press was a really bad idea, right?<\/p>\n On the Internet, truth is not optimized. On the Web, it\u2019s not enough to battle falsehood with truth; the truth doesn\u2019t always win. In the age of social media, the marketplace model doesn\u2019t work.<\/b><\/p>\n And what is your cunning plan? What brilliant idea do you have to make sure the truth will win out? Well, we\u2019re waiting.<\/p>\n A 2016 Stanford study<\/a> showed that 82 percent of middle schoolers couldn\u2019t distinguish between an ad labeled \u201csponsored content\u201d and an actual news story. Only a quarter<\/a> of high school students could tell the difference between an actual verified news site and one from a deceptive account designed to look like a real one. <\/b><\/p>\n Well, there are a couple of reasons for this. First, middle schoolers are 11-14 years old. They don\u2019t know anything yet, and let\u2019s be honest, they\u2019re hitting puberty and their hormones are driving them bonkers. There is really only one thing they are thinking about and it isn’t the news.<\/p>\n Second, the education system today does not teach critical thinking. In fact, college graduates today couldn\u2019t hold a candle to graduates from the 1940\u2019s and 50\u2019s, and this includes you.<\/p>\n Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. <\/b>These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust.<\/b><\/p>\n And those are countries that do not have a history of protecting freedom of speech either. One of them is Germany, and guess what? They\u2019re jailing anyone who makes any comments regarding Muslims and the crimes they\u2019re committing, such as gang raping 14 year old girls. Hell, they\u2019re jailing the 14 year old victims because to accuse a Muslim of raping her is…wait for it…a Hate Crime!!<\/p>\n We call them hate speech laws, but there\u2019s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is.<\/b><\/p>\n Sure there is. It\u2019s anything the ruling Progressive elite doesn\u2019t like.<\/p>\n In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation. <\/b><\/p>\n Darn! Well I guess that\u2019s it for Dirty Harry Callahan<\/a>!<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=lZUJAG-WuoM<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s time to consider these statutes.<\/b><\/p>\n Oh no it isn\u2019t! EVER!!<\/p>\n The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from <\/b>Brandenburg v. Ohio<\/b><\/i><\/a> (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites \u201cimminent lawless action\u201d or is likely to do so can be restricted.<\/b><\/p>\n You might want to review that you idiot. While I can\u2019t make head or tails out of the legal jargon, I did get the cursory view from Wikipedia<\/a>. The key section is \u201cThe U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg’s conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.\u201d<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n In other words, if I am understanding this correctly, unless they actually commit an action, you can\u2019t stop them from spewing their garbage.<\/p>\n Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof<\/a> and Omar Mateen<\/a> and the El Paso shooter<\/a> were consumers of hate speech. <\/b><\/p>\n They weren\u2019t domestic terrorists dumb ass, they were straight out murderers. They just wanted to murder people and didn\u2019t have a political agenda. Now Timothy McVeigh, HE was a domestic terrorist. Oh, I don\u2019t recall him actually saying or writing anything, but I could be wrong.<\/p>\n Speech doesn\u2019t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely? <\/b><\/p>\n No, it doesn\u2019t. You, like all Progressive Liberal Democrats like to blame the group, the idea or the object instead of holding the individual responsible for their actions.<\/p>\n Let the debate begin.<\/b><\/p>\n Let\u2019s not and say we did.<\/p>\n Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance.<\/b><\/p>\n Well, it looks like you want to arrest pretty much the entire Progressive Liberal Democrat party. They are the most hateful, intolerant, bigoted bunch I\u2019ve had the displeasure to hear.<\/p>\n It enables discrimination.<\/b><\/p>\n No it doesn\u2019t. Actions enable discrimination. Here\u2019s a fact you might not like. Everyone discriminates. It\u2019s part of human nature. There are people I discriminate against because there is something about them that just hits me the wrong way. Do I go around and insult them. Generally no. What I do object to is people like you who have decided I have no choice but to like whatever it is I don\u2019t like. That is what these bogus \u201cHate\u201d laws do.<\/p>\n Isn\u2019t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law? Why shouldn\u2019t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation?<\/b><\/p>\n Why? Because it\u2019s censorship and unconstitutional. Oh, yeah, there is that pesky constitution that you progressives hate so much.<\/p>\n All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I\u2019m all for protecting \u201cthought that we hate,\u201d but not speech that incites hate. It undermines the very values of a fair marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is designed to protect. <\/b><\/p>\n You have no frakking clue. You claim to be a believer in free speech but you can\u2019t wait to punish anyone who says something you don\u2019t like or find offensive. Hey guess what? I find what you wrote to be offensive and I want you arrested and jailed. Trial? Due Process? Why should you have that since you are a hater? Just lock you up and throw away the key.<\/p>\n I can tell you one thing that will happen if these laws go into place and are used. Someone is going to get killed, probably a whole lot of someones including a boatload of federal, state and local law enforcement officers. You see, along with that pesky 1st<\/sup> Amendment, we have the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment, something that you, no doubt, want repealed.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n