The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Washington Post: First Amendment Shouldn't Apply to States Censoring Political Speech They Hate
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post opinion page:

Why America needs a hate speech law

By Richard Stengel
Oct. 29, 2019 at 5:20 a.m. PDT
Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016.

When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

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?

It’s a fair question.

It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn’t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society.

Like I’ve been saying: Current Year thinking is not about principles, such as Freedom of Speech, it’s about Good Guys vs. Bad Guys.

In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. …

That’s 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 “the marketplace of ideas.”

Back when William O. Douglas joined the Supreme Court in April 1939, the world was a simpler, more innocent place. Instead of a sinister Russian troll farm concocting memes, there was merely a giant international conspiracy of Communist Parties under the thumb of Stalin infiltrating Western institutions to persuade us to, first, oppose Hitler, but then, later in 1939, to support Hitler.

But it’s not 1939 anymore, so we can’t afford free speech in these scarier times.

This “marketplace” 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.

… 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.

We need to go back to the level playing field when I, as editor of Time magazine, could personally put a massive thumb on the scale of the national conversation by what I chose to feature on the cover of Time. Man, that was awesome …

… Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination. Isn’t 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’t 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?

Remember when the essence of liberalism was that the 14th Amendment meant that the 1st Amendment applied to state governments?

All speech is not equal.

Some speech is more equal.

 
Hide 140 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Shoot me now.

    “Hate” laws of any kind are EVIL. There is not such thing as a “hate” crime. There is the crime, regardless of why it was committed.

    Speech is protected in the United States. Yes, that is an “outlier” indeed, isn’t it? It is under attack by ignorant fools who know only their own generation, apparently. Even above the entrance to the library of my humble alma mater, this is carved in it’s old fashioned way:

    WHO KNOWS ONLY HIS OWN GENERATION REMAINS ALWAYS A CHILD

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Our Bill of Rights has an almost arithmetic perfection because it avoids convenient preferences, but hate crime laws are a kind of broken math, 2+2 equalling 4, 5, 6, 7 and everything else, because they depend totally on who is in power.
    It's like Jack D responding to defamation and false accusations: he feels all kinds of ways about defamation depending on the religio-ethnic group of the accused.
    Disagree: Johann Ricke

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The unstated premise of this WaPo article is that: "Hey, people like me currently hold the whip-hand, so we could ban whatever we wanted if that pesky First Amendment wasn't in the way. That would be so cool to just silence our deplorable adversaries."

    If this moron were in the minority and fundamentalist Christians (or whomever he hates most), were in a position to shut him down, there is a 100% chance he would be screaming about his own "rights" to dissent.

    But for now he can't conceive of the possibility that his own fashionable views aren't inherently "correct." There is no sense of reciprocity or mutual respect in him. Just self-righteousness. It's why these leftists are so dangerous. They believe they are humanitarians but they are actually cryptofascists.

    Here, for example, he admits that he doesn't even believe in objective reality or the rationality of humans:


    no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood
     
    To him, there is no reasoning process. "Truth" is just the power to "drive out" dissent. And he believes he and his ilk are the only ones entitled to wield this power. These NYT and WaPo types really are dangerous.

    Replies: @Jack D

  2. I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.

    Yeah, come to think of it, no other countries have a purported Constitutional Republic either. A constraining Constitution is a real outlier among the nations of the developed world … the whole thing is really out of order in the current era.

    “You’re out of order, you’re out of order, this whole trial is out of order!”

    BTW, it’s nothing new, this comparing America to the “rest of the developed world”. The left has been saying this stuff forever, whether it was opposition to Communism or low gas taxes. Due process and rule of laws, not men, worked great when they were dirty, stinking hippies trying to stay out of jail for incitement-of-a-riot charges. Now the left has no use for this stuff anymore.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Frank the prosecutor who is wearing glasses is Craig T. Nelson, who went on to star in Coach.

    , @Bob G.
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Gun ownership . . .

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  3. Hell, if you can’t rely on “sophisticated Arab diplomats” to properly understand the rights of Americans, who can you rely on?

    • LOL: AndrewR, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @hhsiii
    @kaganovitch

    Why didn’t this asshat point out to these Arab diplomats we allow people to burn our own national flag and the Bible, why the hell wouldn’t we let them burn a Koran? And then tell them by the way, those are bacon lardons on that salad you’re eating, Achmed.

    , @El Dato
    @kaganovitch

    Anyway some of these Arab diplomats will be incinerated when we come and see (giggle!), so who cares about what they say.

    First off all, let's lock down any discussion about the Holocaust and make criticism of Israel a criminal act.

    "Democracy dies in darkness and we will make sure of that".

  4. As garbage as the GOP is, stuff like this is a useful reminder that the left cannot and will not just leave people alone, and all policy must be geared to eliminating options for people to say or do things it doesn’t agree with.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @ATBOTL
    @Arclight

    If the past is any indication, conservative Republicans will support laws against "hate speech" in a few years. Now that the establishment is pushing this openly, we will probably see some version of an article like "The Conservative Case For Thought Crime Laws" in National Review.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  5. The first amendment was written by dead white male slaveholders–the new enlightened Amerika will have no need for such things. (White man bad, therefore white man speech bad.)

    This cannot end well.

    • Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster
    @Justvisiting

    "The first amendment was written by dead white male slaveholders..."

    Clearly, the objective is to go from dead white male slaveholders to alive white male slaves.

    Yes, this will not end will.

    , @awry
    @Justvisiting

    The peculiarities of the US Constitution have outlived their usefulness for the elite, they are part of the global elite now. The fact that the US is an outlier allowed the freedom of the internet, which has become a danger for this elite. The future is a strictly controlled and censored online space, like that of China.
    2016 has showed to them that they can lose control of the narrative, controlling the "national institutions" of the MSM isn't enough anymore in the age of social media. Before that, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, Time, Newsweek etc. etc. functioned as a "Ministry of Truth" for them, not anymore.
    So the obvious solution for them is to end this free speech nonsense for all. "Hate speech is not free speech", "Free speech is not freedom from the consequences" (including from being declared Vogelfrei) are already the accepted soundbites among woke young people.

    Replies: @Jack D

  6. ” 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?

    It’s a fair question.”

    No.

    No, it is NOT a fair question. As a non-Muslim the Koran is no different than the NYT. I discard of it as I see fit. That you may be offended by how I discard of it is not of my concern. That’s YOUR emotional burden, not mine.

    This notion that the state is obligated to protect the emotions of the citizenry needs to die a quick death.

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    @sondjata

    Under U.S. law, one may only burn one's own flag, Koran, "Das Kapital" etc.

    BTW can we start a GoFundMe page for Richard Stengel? It's just sad seeing a clapped-out old presstitute still having to turn tricks for another drink.

  7. Anon[163] • Disclaimer says:

    I would go for it if a hate speech conviction was the end of it, and then you returned to a ban-the-box society. Under cancel culture, your punishment never ends. No job for you, ever. You’re registered in the cancel offender database and you live under a freeway overpass until you die.

    One day Canada is going to go populist, and there will be a lot of pent-up differences of opinion about what hate speech is. It will not be pretty.

  8. The Democratic Party wants War with Christian Russian…What other conclusion can one draw?

    • Replies: @216
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Any hate speech law would differ in how it is written, and more importantly how it is enforced and interpreted by the courts.

    A major problem for the long-term success of the Right in this country is that left-wing comedians and professors can basically defame their voters at will.

    Obviously given the European experience, we can expect a left-liberal court system to define "Anti-Christian" narrowly, and "Islamophobic" broadly.

    But what precisely are we gaining in support for free speech absolutism?

    Moderates may like the nebulous idea of the Constitution, but they like the practical matter of civility far more.

    Suffer the loss of Steve Sailer to take down Stephen Colbert.

  9. We need to either recognize the specialness of the Bill of Rights, protect it from subversion and recognize that there is no first amendment right to revolutionary agitation, or we lose it. This anti-American filth (and Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun obsession) are far more clearly illegal than any Trump policy decision thay was held up by an imperious judge.
    ——–
    That and this are the future. A small business owner reported a crime to police. The local black community is now retaliating against him. Right now it’s just “brigading” negative reviews of his smoothie place but given the rich cultural heritage of the people it could get worse. Notice that she “reveals” the dog whistle “code words” used to identify a brotha just because he was looking into windows in a recently burglarized neighborhood.
    https://postimg.cc/zyNsYYyF

  10. If we could trust the government to be completely neutral and punish “I hate white people” as harshly as “I hate black Jews [or whomever]” then this wouldn’t be so awful. But we all know it wouldn’t be equally enforced. In fact prominent public figures have called for an explicit anti-white double standard in hate crime and hate speech laws.

    • Replies: @Kamisama
    @AndrewR

    I don't think 'hate' laws were ever meant to criminalise 'hate' in general. It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, 'minority protection' laws. They exist purely to further the social engineering agenda.

    Replies: @Moses, @Anonymous, @Pat Kittle

  11. @Buzz Mohawk
    Shoot me now.

    "Hate" laws of any kind are EVIL. There is not such thing as a "hate" crime. There is the crime, regardless of why it was committed.

    Speech is protected in the United States. Yes, that is an "outlier" indeed, isn't it? It is under attack by ignorant fools who know only their own generation, apparently. Even above the entrance to the library of my humble alma mater, this is carved in it's old fashioned way:

    WHO KNOWS ONLY HIS OWN GENERATION REMAINS ALWAYS A CHILD

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Hypnotoad666

    Our Bill of Rights has an almost arithmetic perfection because it avoids convenient preferences, but hate crime laws are a kind of broken math, 2+2 equalling 4, 5, 6, 7 and everything else, because they depend totally on who is in power.
    It’s like Jack D responding to defamation and false accusations: he feels all kinds of ways about defamation depending on the religio-ethnic group of the accused.
    Disagree: Johann Ricke

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @J.Ross

    Nice touch.

  12. Fear not, we will have good people identify good ideas so that we won’t have to bother with explaining “how good ideas drive out bad ones.” Have we become so stupid that we cannot wrap our heads around the concept of moving the question back one level?

  13. istevefan says:

    This “marketplace” 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.

    The good news is that he is effectively admitting that his side can’t defend its ideas without the help of the state suppressing their opponents.

    The bad news is that he is probably going to get his way.

  14. Iowahawk has it right, tweeting in response to Stengel, “I’ll agree to let you outlaw hate speech if you agree to let me define hate speech.”

    Stolen from https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/346805/

  15. Isn’t “sophisticated Arab diplomats” an oxymoron, emphasis on the moron?

    Proclaiming fealty to the Koran by day, but banging Swedish hookers while guzzling Grey Goose by night?

  16. @kaganovitch
    Hell, if you can't rely on "sophisticated Arab diplomats" to properly understand the rights of Americans, who can you rely on?

    Replies: @hhsiii, @El Dato

    Why didn’t this asshat point out to these Arab diplomats we allow people to burn our own national flag and the Bible, why the hell wouldn’t we let them burn a Koran? And then tell them by the way, those are bacon lardons on that salad you’re eating, Achmed.

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
  17. I suppose we should be happy the masks are off. Any thinking person can see these people are totalitarians in waiting.

    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @Anonymousse
    @res


    Totalitarians in waiting
     
    What makes you think they’re waiting?

    If you disagree with the state ideology (even privately) and this is discovered by the secret police - you and your close associates are not allowed to earn a living. If you disagree with the program AND defend yourself against the state paramilitary forces - you go to prison.

    https://youtu.be/cU0bmV5BKiY

    I think it’s time we made the mental shift and realize that we are ALREADY living in a dystopia.

    Replies: @res, @nebulafox

  18. Hate speech laws will be applied in a who/whom manner. Why isn’t this obvious?

  19. Remember when the essence of liberalism was that the 14th Amendment meant that the 1st Amendment applied to state governments

    Remember when a major Leftist movement was called the “Free Speech Movement”? Remember when the Left used to argue in favor of free speech even for people who were literally Nazis? That was the Old American Left that hadn’t yet fully embraced Who-whom. The Woke Left is all about who-whom. Where you sit with them depends on where you stand. Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN’T apply, so it’s OK to deplatform deplorables as long as the Federal government isn’t the one doing it.

    I’ve been waiting for the Left to realize that the incorporation doctrine was a two edged sword but I always thought that the first attack would be against the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. But the Left nowadays hates free speech even more than they hate guns.

    I think the turning point was Trump’s election – they always thought that if they had the megaphone then they could bring the voters along with them. Walter Cronkite would say something negative about Vietnam and the country would follow. But Trump’s election made them realize that they couldn’t be sure of that anymore. The man could “Twitter” (whatever the hell that is) directly to the voters and wise men like Walter and Richard wouldn’t be there to explain to us What it All Means and Why Trump is Wrong. This is driving them mad with frustration. The other day I was flipping cable channels and I saw Walter’s successor, Dan Rather, doing interviews with over the hill rock stars. It was one step above selling reverse mortgages on infomercials. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    Remember when a major Leftist movement was called the “Free Speech Movement”? Remember when the Left used to argue in favor of free speech even for people who were literally Nazis? That was the Old American Left that hadn’t yet fully embraced Who-whom. The Woke Left is all about who-whom. Where you sit with them depends on where you stand. Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN’T apply, so it’s OK to deplatform deplorables as long as the Federal government isn’t the one doing it.
     
    Jack I think your view here is that of a Pollyanna.

    There was a "Free Speech Movement" from the Left when the Left lacked institutional power. The Left now possesses enormous institutional power, so it does not need a concept of "Free Speech" because Leftists can say whatever they want whenever they want however they want without fear of reprisal. It is the fact that there is still some relatively narrow space behind which non-Leftists can hide from them that they cannot abide.

    Another hobbyhorse from the 1990s was "tolerance." Now that they have institutional power to enforce their vision, you don't really hear about the virtues of "tolerance" anymore. The online Leftist will now post a lame meme explaining "Popper's Paradox of Tolerance" to explain why it's acceptable to suppress the freedoms of non-Leftists.

    https://wy3mg1xgify37n21x223cw7xl1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HcuZIT5w8xJLMXoISDexG1GNz5Dj7xHO_QGeueMtdPU.jpg

    "You see, 'tolerance' was always a faulty concept and I'm sorry we didn't see that right up until the moment that we captured the institutional power to force our will upon the 'intolerant.' Why no, I'm not myself being 'intolerant' by suppressing your rights and freedoms, what a silly statement!"

    The only useful rubric for interpreting these people and their pretexts is:

    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
     

    Replies: @International Jew, @dfordoom

    , @International Jew
    @Jack D


    Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN’T apply
     
    Yup. And I think the purest expression of their attitude is how they like to say, "Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom from the consequences of your speech." Sheesh, how committed can someone who believes that really be to free speech?
  20. 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?

    Tell the Arab that we want him to pass a law banning the burning of the American flag in his country and is he OK with that? Also, American women don’t like to cover their heads or wear heavy clothing in the summer so when they visit Arab countries they should be able to go bare headed, wear bikinis on the beach, etc. in accordance with American custom. This respect thing should be a two way street, wouldn’t you say?

  21. If the mechanism by which the marketplace weeds out bad ideas can’t be explained, perhaps Mr. Stengel can explain the mechanism by which a few beurocrats do their weeding?

  22. “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?”

    And there is a perfect example of the mental gulf between “It was written” and “Nothing is written unless I write it”.

  23. (((Richard Stengel)))

    Gosh.

    “as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech”

    That’s a thing? Why in the world is that a thing?

    • Replies: @Hail
    @Peterike


    a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech
     

    That’s a thing? Why...?
     
    In the early 2010s, the US State Department was tasked with traveling around the world championing the virtues of (or "promoting," in the words of State Department order) Gays and Gay Rights.

    ("Obama Elevates Gay Rights as a Foreign Policy Priority," VOA, Dec. 5, 2011.)


    A memorandum Mr. Obama sent to government agencies directs them to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, or LGBT persons.
     
    I don't recall Trump ever revoking this policy in a formal order to the State Department, but maybe I missed that news.
  24. “ Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows…”

    I was also talking to some sophisticated diplomats, who couldn’t understand why our government doesn’t take the bonesaw option against corrupt jihadi-demographic-invasion-aligned journalists such as Richard Stengel.

    “ It’s a fair question.”

    Indeed.

    Also, keep this crap up Jeff, we’re not gonna forget, too bad about that cloud contract.

    https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/25/microsoft-beats-amazon-for-10-billion-pentagon-jedi-cloud-contract/

    For you all that have been using Amazon by default for a while, think about how much Prime is really worth.

    Wal-Mart and Sears and Target and eBay have comparable prices on 95% of Amazon’s items. And for the ones you really need fast, the $119 a year you save cancelling prime pays for a lot of upgraded shipping when you actually need it.

    I cancelled a couple years ago, and now I kinda like it how the stuff from other companies sometimes comes in 2 days, sometimes in 9. I forget about it, then a week later it’s like a little unexpected present.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Lot

    I've been boycotting amazon for years. Long before it was fashionable.

    I almost always find better prices on ebay or walmart.com.

    Jeff Bezos is a creepy little corporatist welfare queen.

  25. The best defense of free speech I have seen is the short, readable, and, sadly, still relevant mid-90s pamphlet Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rausch. It was something of a bestseller and used copies are available cheaply all over. In too brief a summary, a society without free speech is Boxer Rebellion China puffing up their chests about how they din’t need any newfangled hairy barabarian inventions to expel a small number of invaders.

  26. I guess inciting hatred against the Russians doesn’t count as “hate speech.”

  27. @res
    I suppose we should be happy the masks are off. Any thinking person can see these people are totalitarians in waiting.

    Replies: @Anonymousse

    Totalitarians in waiting

    What makes you think they’re waiting?

    If you disagree with the state ideology (even privately) and this is discovered by the secret police – you and your close associates are not allowed to earn a living. If you disagree with the program AND defend yourself against the state paramilitary forces – you go to prison.

    I think it’s time we made the mental shift and realize that we are ALREADY living in a dystopia.

    • Agree: Dtbb, Mr. Grey
    • Replies: @res
    @Anonymousse


    What makes you think they’re waiting?
     
    Because they don't have sufficient power yet. If you think what we have now is bad, imagine Hillary as president right now having chosen two Supreme Court justices. I really believe the Never Trump shills around here should have a long hard think about that.

    Some are jumping the gun because they think they are powerful enough already (hence the masks coming off). And they are close, as you describe.

    But it's hard to argue with this.

    I think it’s time we made the mental shift and realize that we are ALREADY living in a dystopia.
     

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @nebulafox
    @Anonymousse

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/proud-boys-arrests-new-york-city-brawl-fight-gavin-mcinnes-2018-10-22/

    "The altercation between the Proud Boys members and anti-fascist protesters, or antifa, broke out about a block away when six people dressed in black and wearing masks confronted Proud Boys members, NYPD's Chief of Detectives Dermot Shea said Oct 15. One of those dressed in black threw a bottle at the Proud Boys group and a fight ensued for about 38 seconds until uniformed officers intervened."

    Huh! That would imply Antifa started it, but no arrests because they don't "cooperate with the police". Yet the police used them to track down the Proud Boys.

    What is going on in the NYPD?

    "Ahead of the speech, vandals smashed windows, filled a keypad lock with glue and spray-painted the doors of the Metropolitan Republican Club. A note left at the scene said the damage was "just the beginning."

    Until they are rounded up and put back on their meds en masse, I suppose so.

  28. @AndrewR
    If we could trust the government to be completely neutral and punish "I hate white people" as harshly as "I hate black Jews [or whomever]" then this wouldn't be so awful. But we all know it wouldn't be equally enforced. In fact prominent public figures have called for an explicit anti-white double standard in hate crime and hate speech laws.

    Replies: @Kamisama

    I don’t think ‘hate’ laws were ever meant to criminalise ‘hate’ in general. It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, ‘minority protection’ laws. They exist purely to further the social engineering agenda.

    • Replies: @Moses
    @Kamisama


    It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, ‘minority protection’ laws.
     
    I think you mean "'non-White protection' laws."

    Whites are about 8% of the world population, and about to dip into a minority in our own countries.

    Using the word "minority" when you mean "non-Whites" perpetuates the impression that Whites are still dominant over put-upon, oppressed "minorities."

    We ain't. And soon.

    Use "non-White" instead of "minority." It puts the focus in the correct place.

    Words matter.

    Replies: @Moses, @AndrewR

    , @Anonymous
    @Kamisama

    Women aren't a minority but you can be sure such laws will apply to vocal critics of feminism and related causes.

    , @Pat Kittle
    @Kamisama


    I don’t think ‘hate’ laws were ever meant to criminalise ‘hate’ in general.... They exist purely to further the social engineering agenda.
     
    That social engineering agenda is nothing less than White genocide -- both the "soft" & hard versions.
  29. Of course some want to enact “hate speech” laws to suppress views with which they disagree. When one is ignorant and cannot refute an opposing viewpoint with logic and rhetoric restricting speech is their only recourse.

    These people who want to restrict speech are retards who cannot persuade others in to adopt their idiotic world view. They remind me of spoiled brats who can only holler, “It’s not fair.”

    • Replies: @Moses
    @Enemy of Earth

    Due to mass immigration, those "spoiled brats" like AOC and Omar are gonna be making the laws of our land soon.

    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a non-White boot stamping on a White face - forever.

  30. In all these type of articles, there’s no point reading the body text, go straight to reader comments and see what the reaction is, I scrolled through maybe first 100 comments and only 3 -4 were mildly supportive of the authors argument. There is hope after all. Here was one of the funnier comments: “I find this article offensive and hateful maybe you should be arrested for writing it”

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @indocon

    Liberals like to be smug and say "never read the comments". That's because liberals are allergic to dissenting opinions.

    They also like to mute people on Twitter, then brag about it.

  31. I want everyone to realize a few things:

    1. Most of the people who read and comment on WaPo articles are liberals.

    2. Pretty much 100% of the comments I read were highly critical of the article.

    3. That means that almost 100% of the liberals who commented on the article disagreed with it. Also 100% of the few conservatives.

    In other words, those of us on the left of the political spectrum are not ruled by elitist woke authoritarians. At least not yet.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Paleo Liberal

    That may be the case, but could you imagine an op-ed like that being published in a mainstream media publication a generation ago? I mean all the Arab diplomats I know think free speech is crazy, what more evidence do you need to know it's a bad idea? Those silly Enlightenment thinkers, they probably were against stoning people too, amazing!

    Replies: @notsaying

    , @Moses
    @Paleo Liberal


    In other words, those of us on the left of the political spectrum are not ruled by elitist woke authoritarians. At least not yet.

     

    Do you disavow?

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    , @216
    @Paleo Liberal

    1. The Washington Post is 100% owned by a vengeful oligarch, J. Bezos

    2. Mr. Bezos is willing to spend considerable losses at this paper to drive traffic and gain influence.

    3. Anything published in the Post can be presumed to be done with the implicit permission of Bezos, note the dearth of pro-union articles and columns.

    4. It is laughable to call this system "fair" when left-liberals are 90-95% of journolists and academics.

    Affirmative Action for the Right

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

  32. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral

    Despite all the hype over the last three years about, Russians hacking our election; Russians attacking our democracy; Russian disinformation campaigns and Russian bots etc…

    I challenge anyone to name one false belief that Americans had due to a Russian disinformation campaign? Because I can certainly give false beliefs Americans hold due to disinformation from western intelligence and western media.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @tanabear

    I am sad to say it is trivially easy for me to come up with a false belief widely held by Americans that was the result of a Russian disinformation campaign.

    In the early 1980s, an operative in the Kremlin invented a conspiracy theory that AIDS was developed in a US government laboratory, for the purpose of wiping out “undesirable “ people.

    Thing is, scientifically speaking, this is impossible.

    After the Cold War ended, the former Soviet operative admitted to making the whole thing up.

    I was naive enough that I mentioned that in a science class I was teaching the next day, hoping to use that as a lesson on how to evaluate conspiracy theories. I was shouted down by many of my students, especially those who were black.

    So there is an example.

    The Russians don’t need to invent conspiracy theories anymore. Americans do a good enough job as it is.

    What the Russians do is amplify the conspiracy theories on the web anyway. A Russian operative in 2016 would spend one day as Mr MAGA with conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, the next day as Mr BLM with conspiracy theories about white cops. They didn’t light most of the fires, they weren’t the main ones spreading most of the fires, but they supplied gas for the fires. It has been claimed that there were some conspiracy theories initiated by the Russians, but I don’t know if any of these were popular.

    In an k noIt naive enough to believe the Russians somehow magically changed when Communism fell and would never, ever spread disinformation. Putin was a Communist back in the day.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    , @Rohirrimborn
    @tanabear


    I challenge anyone to name one false belief that Americans had due to a Russian disinformation campaign?
     
    Going back to soviet days the belief that Sacco and Vanzetti were framed.

    Replies: @Alden, @anon

  33. Funny, a sophisticated Chinese diplomat was also telling me he didn’t understand why Trump doesn’t just round up everybody in Antifa and put them to some useful work.

    I preferred the Duranty days when the New York Times at least had the balls to openly stand with the thugocracies they were feting as opposed to presenting mukhabarat-approved-and probably influenced-opinions as normative for democracies on the down-low.

  34. @Peterike
    (((Richard Stengel)))

    Gosh.

    “as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech”

    That’s a thing? Why in the world is that a thing?

    Replies: @Hail

    a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech

    That’s a thing? Why…?

    In the early 2010s, the US State Department was tasked with traveling around the world championing the virtues of (or “promoting,” in the words of State Department order) Gays and Gay Rights.

    (“Obama Elevates Gay Rights as a Foreign Policy Priority,” VOA, Dec. 5, 2011.)

    A memorandum Mr. Obama sent to government agencies directs them to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, or LGBT persons.

    I don’t recall Trump ever revoking this policy in a formal order to the State Department, but maybe I missed that news.

  35. @Anonymousse
    @res


    Totalitarians in waiting
     
    What makes you think they’re waiting?

    If you disagree with the state ideology (even privately) and this is discovered by the secret police - you and your close associates are not allowed to earn a living. If you disagree with the program AND defend yourself against the state paramilitary forces - you go to prison.

    https://youtu.be/cU0bmV5BKiY

    I think it’s time we made the mental shift and realize that we are ALREADY living in a dystopia.

    Replies: @res, @nebulafox

    What makes you think they’re waiting?

    Because they don’t have sufficient power yet. If you think what we have now is bad, imagine Hillary as president right now having chosen two Supreme Court justices. I really believe the Never Trump shills around here should have a long hard think about that.

    Some are jumping the gun because they think they are powerful enough already (hence the masks coming off). And they are close, as you describe.

    But it’s hard to argue with this.

    I think it’s time we made the mental shift and realize that we are ALREADY living in a dystopia.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @res


    I really believe the Never Trump shills around here should have a long hard think about that.
     
    What "Never Trump shills"? Seriously, I've bad-mouthed him as much as anybody, but that doesn't mean I'm against him. I just think he has been fucking up in so many ways and could have done SO MUCH MORE by now. The only way I'd vote against him is FOR somebody better (on our side, as Trump still seems to be, but a better executive).

    I've had this discussion with the old Jack Hanson, and I don't want to have to repeat the arguments back and forth.

    BTW, I like the rest of your comment, Res, and this whole thread is good to read. The only one on here who is NOT against hate speech laws may be our host Steve Sailer, from what I've read. AndrewR (not picking you out, but I was about to reply) above and the rest need to understand how wise the Founding Fathers of our nation were. However, if you get really into that stuff, the alt-right guys keep bringing up that "muh Constitution" insult. Possibly they mean "it's not gonna help you now", and on that, I kinda agree.

    Replies: @Jack Henson, @res

  36. Dick looks like he could be Jeffrey Epstein’s half brother:

  37. “The end of the war of 1861-65 brought legal freedom to blacks, but began a struggle to protect their rights, which were systematically violated, not only in former states of the Confederacy, but even in many northern states. The former Confederate states began passing a series of laws, often called Black Codes, which denied civil rights to freedmen, especially the right to keep and bear arms, and white gangs systematic harassed and attacked freedmen, with an emphasis on forcibly disarming them.”

    Roland on Halbrook, ‘Freedmen, The Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876’

    Author:
    Stephen P. Halbrook
    Reviewer:
    Jon Roland

    [MORE]

    Understanding The Fourteenth Amendment

    There have been many treatises written on the Fourteenth Amendment and the history of its development and interpretation, but this one is, in many ways, the most complete and comprehensive to date, covering many aspects that others have neglected, and providing its historical background and development, how its wording was drafted, and how its framers understood it.

    The end of the war of 1861-65 brought legal freedom to blacks, but began a struggle to protect their rights, which were systematically violated, not only in former states of the Confederacy, but even in many northern states. The former Confederate states began passing a series of laws, often called Black Codes, which denied civil rights to freedmen, especially the right to keep and bear arms, and white gangs systematic harassed and attacked freedmen, with an emphasis on forcibly disarming them.

    In attempting to establish a legal order under which federal courts could protect civil rights from such violations, the Republican-led Congress began with the antebellum legal system, especially several Supreme Court decisions that they felt needed to be overturned. The first of these was the case of Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1831), in which a state case claiming protection under the Fifth Amendment takings clause was appealed to federal court. Justice Marshall ruled that the protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, and the federal courts did not have appellate jurisdiction over state cases involving such rights. The second of these was Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), in which Justice Taney ruled that the Constitution permitted slavery, on the grounds that the rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights were rights of citizens rather than of persons.

    Halbrook shows how the debates over the drafting of what was to become the Fourteenth Amendment were intertwined with the debates over two main bills, the Civil Rights Act, which was to operate in those areas in which civil government had been restored, and the Freedman’s Bureau Act, for those areas still under military rule. Much of the background on these comes from the secret journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. Halbrook also examines the debates in the press, in the state legislatures ratifying the amendment, and statements made by its framers.

    All of these sources make several things clear. First, the amendment was definitely intended to incorporate all of the civil rights protections of the Constitution and all of the Bill of Rights into restrictions on the states, and to extend the original and appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases involving such rights. This was the intent of the privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection clauses. The word “incorporate” was used in the debates in Congress, and it was intended that all of the Bill of Rights were to be incorporated, even the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. This evidence refutes the doctrine of “selective incorporation”.

    Second, despite the focus of the author on the right to keep and bear arms, it is clear from the evidence of the debates that that was the right of greatest concern to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Third, it is clear that the purpose of the citizenship clause was to overturn the jurisprudence of Dred Scott, not just to establish that the rights protected were the rights of persons rather than of citizens, but also that all persons born in a state or territory or naturalized were citizens, thereby extending all state legal protections for citizens to blacks, Indians, and other immigrant minorities who had not previously been considered citizens.

    Fourth, Halbrook provides convincing evidence that the firearms which persons had the right to keep and bear were the latest firearms available, that the right was individual, intended to provide protection against abuse by government officials and their agents as well as against criminal attack, and that neither federal or state governments had the power to prohibit or disband militias, even if they were not state-sanctioned.

    What is less clear is whether the enforcement clause was intended to delegate power to Congress to impose penalties on only civil rights violations by state officials and their agents, or also by private individuals. It appears that the purpose of the framers of the Fourteenth was that it cover private acts, and the first Civil Rights Act applied to private as well as public acts, but the language of the Fourteenth only referred to states, and the decision in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) was that, based on the language, only the acts of state officials or their agents were within the legislative jurisdiction of Congress. This leaves acts of federal officials and agents, and of private individuals, outside that jurisdiction, on state territory.

    What Halbrook shows is, that by neglecting the right to keep and bear arms, previous commentators have ignored the one right that is the key to understanding the Fourteenth Amendment, how it came to be drafted in the way that it was, how it came to be adopted, and how it should be interpreted. He also shows how subsequent court decisions and state legislation, such as Jim Crow laws, have departed from that intent, and discusses the unresolved legal issues that such departures represent.

    This treatise is a major contribution to legal history and commentary, and should be read by everyone having an interest in civil rights or firearms rights.

    Copyright (c) 1999 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact [email protected].

    https://networks.h-net.org/node/10673/reviews/10794/roland-halbrook-freedmen-fourteenth-amendment-and-right-bear-arms-1866

  38. @tanabear

    In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral
     
    Despite all the hype over the last three years about, Russians hacking our election; Russians attacking our democracy; Russian disinformation campaigns and Russian bots etc...

    I challenge anyone to name one false belief that Americans had due to a Russian disinformation campaign? Because I can certainly give false beliefs Americans hold due to disinformation from western intelligence and western media.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @Rohirrimborn

    I am sad to say it is trivially easy for me to come up with a false belief widely held by Americans that was the result of a Russian disinformation campaign.

    In the early 1980s, an operative in the Kremlin invented a conspiracy theory that AIDS was developed in a US government laboratory, for the purpose of wiping out “undesirable “ people.

    Thing is, scientifically speaking, this is impossible.

    After the Cold War ended, the former Soviet operative admitted to making the whole thing up.

    I was naive enough that I mentioned that in a science class I was teaching the next day, hoping to use that as a lesson on how to evaluate conspiracy theories. I was shouted down by many of my students, especially those who were black.

    So there is an example.

    The Russians don’t need to invent conspiracy theories anymore. Americans do a good enough job as it is.

    What the Russians do is amplify the conspiracy theories on the web anyway. A Russian operative in 2016 would spend one day as Mr MAGA with conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, the next day as Mr BLM with conspiracy theories about white cops. They didn’t light most of the fires, they weren’t the main ones spreading most of the fires, but they supplied gas for the fires. It has been claimed that there were some conspiracy theories initiated by the Russians, but I don’t know if any of these were popular.

    In an k noIt naive enough to believe the Russians somehow magically changed when Communism fell and would never, ever spread disinformation. Putin was a Communist back in the day.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Paleo Liberal

    While I'm not naive enough to believe that the Russians don't try to influence our politics, I do find it a bit rich that our media whines about them incessantly while blatantly ignoring even more egregious offenders like Israel or China. Putin's Russia does not have the resources that the USSR did, not even close, and even the Soviets ultimately couldn't strategically win the propaganda war because nobody could deny that an American factory worker lived better than a middle-class Soviet bureaucrat. My guess is akin to yours: Putin looks at what Americans are doing with their own politics, shrugs his head in disbelief, doesn't much bother to make sense of it anymore, and does whatever he can to egg things along.

    The thing about intelligence services is that they can exacerbate political conditions: they cannot create them out of thin air, no matter how good they are. Nobody in Moscow forced Hillary to campaign in Arizona rather than Michigan, nor did they create the essentially negative image of Hillary (which was based in a kernel of reality, no less than Obama's black propaganda about Romney) that the Trump PR team pounced on. Nor does anybody bother to explain why Vladimir Putin, a former professional, would seriously attempt to recruit somebody as visibly unqualified to be a mole as Donald Trump. Trump is showy, has a big mouth, is temperamentally incapable of not doubling down, and is mercurial. No semi-competent intelligence service would go near him. Influence people around him, sure, but that's not the same thing.

    (The Soviets picked up the same nasty intelligence methods that the Tsarist secret services used and amplified them/widened their reach. Even the ideological stuff about being the vanguard of the global revolution didn't last that long: when Stalin was busy nailing the Old Bolsheviks, he took care to ensure that the largely Jewish and Latvian dominated secret police was ethnically replaced with Great Russians and Caucasians. This ultimately led to the KGB become the least ideological arm of the Soviet government: complete with the surreal scenario of Beria privately making memoranda supporting the restoration of private property. Beria had too many enemies-entirely justified ones-to survive Stalin's fall and implement his planned economic reforms, of course, but the general effect of the KGB becoming the Ohkrana with Communist slogans stuck: they did not tolerate spoiled party princelings on their turf, and it was only in the KGB where someone like Putin could have achieved upward mobility in one of the most socially static societies in the developed world circa the 1970s and 1980s.)

    Replies: @Clifford Brown

    , @dfordoom
    @Paleo Liberal


    In an k noIt naive enough to believe the Russians somehow magically changed when Communism fell and would never, ever spread disinformation. Putin was a Communist back in the day.
     
    Why can't they be like Americans? Americans would never, ever spread disinformation. Or interfere in the governments of other countries.

    OK, there have been one or two instances of the US interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Well OK, actually there have been dozens of instances. But apart from those dozens of isolated instances Americans would never, ever interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.
  39. @Paleo Liberal
    @tanabear

    I am sad to say it is trivially easy for me to come up with a false belief widely held by Americans that was the result of a Russian disinformation campaign.

    In the early 1980s, an operative in the Kremlin invented a conspiracy theory that AIDS was developed in a US government laboratory, for the purpose of wiping out “undesirable “ people.

    Thing is, scientifically speaking, this is impossible.

    After the Cold War ended, the former Soviet operative admitted to making the whole thing up.

    I was naive enough that I mentioned that in a science class I was teaching the next day, hoping to use that as a lesson on how to evaluate conspiracy theories. I was shouted down by many of my students, especially those who were black.

    So there is an example.

    The Russians don’t need to invent conspiracy theories anymore. Americans do a good enough job as it is.

    What the Russians do is amplify the conspiracy theories on the web anyway. A Russian operative in 2016 would spend one day as Mr MAGA with conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, the next day as Mr BLM with conspiracy theories about white cops. They didn’t light most of the fires, they weren’t the main ones spreading most of the fires, but they supplied gas for the fires. It has been claimed that there were some conspiracy theories initiated by the Russians, but I don’t know if any of these were popular.

    In an k noIt naive enough to believe the Russians somehow magically changed when Communism fell and would never, ever spread disinformation. Putin was a Communist back in the day.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    While I’m not naive enough to believe that the Russians don’t try to influence our politics, I do find it a bit rich that our media whines about them incessantly while blatantly ignoring even more egregious offenders like Israel or China. Putin’s Russia does not have the resources that the USSR did, not even close, and even the Soviets ultimately couldn’t strategically win the propaganda war because nobody could deny that an American factory worker lived better than a middle-class Soviet bureaucrat. My guess is akin to yours: Putin looks at what Americans are doing with their own politics, shrugs his head in disbelief, doesn’t much bother to make sense of it anymore, and does whatever he can to egg things along.

    The thing about intelligence services is that they can exacerbate political conditions: they cannot create them out of thin air, no matter how good they are. Nobody in Moscow forced Hillary to campaign in Arizona rather than Michigan, nor did they create the essentially negative image of Hillary (which was based in a kernel of reality, no less than Obama’s black propaganda about Romney) that the Trump PR team pounced on. Nor does anybody bother to explain why Vladimir Putin, a former professional, would seriously attempt to recruit somebody as visibly unqualified to be a mole as Donald Trump. Trump is showy, has a big mouth, is temperamentally incapable of not doubling down, and is mercurial. No semi-competent intelligence service would go near him. Influence people around him, sure, but that’s not the same thing.

    (The Soviets picked up the same nasty intelligence methods that the Tsarist secret services used and amplified them/widened their reach. Even the ideological stuff about being the vanguard of the global revolution didn’t last that long: when Stalin was busy nailing the Old Bolsheviks, he took care to ensure that the largely Jewish and Latvian dominated secret police was ethnically replaced with Great Russians and Caucasians. This ultimately led to the KGB become the least ideological arm of the Soviet government: complete with the surreal scenario of Beria privately making memoranda supporting the restoration of private property. Beria had too many enemies-entirely justified ones-to survive Stalin’s fall and implement his planned economic reforms, of course, but the general effect of the KGB becoming the Ohkrana with Communist slogans stuck: they did not tolerate spoiled party princelings on their turf, and it was only in the KGB where someone like Putin could have achieved upward mobility in one of the most socially static societies in the developed world circa the 1970s and 1980s.)

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Clifford Brown
    @nebulafox


    While I’m not naive enough to believe that the Russians don’t try to influence our politics, I do find it a bit rich that our media whines about them incessantly while blatantly ignoring even more egregious offenders like Israel or China.
     
    If you look into most of the alleged Russian interference it becomes obvious that it was less a Russian, Chinese or Israeli op and much more likely one originating in CIA, FBI Counterintelligence and NATO circles.

    You are correct that no competent intelligence agency would invest in Trump as a Manchurian presidential candidate. The Russians rely upon the same information that pollsters and the media does. Why take a high stakes bet on a brash, reckless, unreliable billionaire loudmouth when basically every other normal presidential candidate is for sale at a reasonable price through the usual channels?
  40. @sondjata
    " 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?

    It’s a fair question."

    No.

    No, it is NOT a fair question. As a non-Muslim the Koran is no different than the NYT. I discard of it as I see fit. That you may be offended by how I discard of it is not of my concern. That's YOUR emotional burden, not mine.

    This notion that the state is obligated to protect the emotions of the citizenry needs to die a quick death.

    Replies: @Eagle Eye

    Under U.S. law, one may only burn one’s own flag, Koran, “Das Kapital” etc.

    BTW can we start a GoFundMe page for Richard Stengel? It’s just sad seeing a clapped-out old presstitute still having to turn tricks for another drink.

    • LOL: Charon
  41. Remember when the essence of liberalism was that the 14th Amendment meant that the 1st Amendment applied to state governments?

    Guess I’m an old-fashioned liberal, ‘cause I want the Bill of Rights to be applied to all state and city governments good and hard BOOM shakalakalaka BOOM shakalaka

  42. @Achmed E. Newman

    I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.
     
    Yeah, come to think of it, no other countries have a purported Constitutional Republic either. A constraining Constitution is a real outlier among the nations of the developed world ... the whole thing is really out of order in the current era.

    "You're out of order, you're out of order, this whole trial is out of order!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA0glbG6c-8

    BTW, it's nothing new, this comparing America to the "rest of the developed world". The left has been saying this stuff forever, whether it was opposition to Communism or low gas taxes. Due process and rule of laws, not men, worked great when they were dirty, stinking hippies trying to stay out of jail for incitement-of-a-riot charges. Now the left has no use for this stuff anymore.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Bob G.

    Frank the prosecutor who is wearing glasses is Craig T. Nelson, who went on to star in Coach.

  43. @Anonymousse
    @res


    Totalitarians in waiting
     
    What makes you think they’re waiting?

    If you disagree with the state ideology (even privately) and this is discovered by the secret police - you and your close associates are not allowed to earn a living. If you disagree with the program AND defend yourself against the state paramilitary forces - you go to prison.

    https://youtu.be/cU0bmV5BKiY

    I think it’s time we made the mental shift and realize that we are ALREADY living in a dystopia.

    Replies: @res, @nebulafox

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/proud-boys-arrests-new-york-city-brawl-fight-gavin-mcinnes-2018-10-22/

    “The altercation between the Proud Boys members and anti-fascist protesters, or antifa, broke out about a block away when six people dressed in black and wearing masks confronted Proud Boys members, NYPD’s Chief of Detectives Dermot Shea said Oct 15. One of those dressed in black threw a bottle at the Proud Boys group and a fight ensued for about 38 seconds until uniformed officers intervened.”

    Huh! That would imply Antifa started it, but no arrests because they don’t “cooperate with the police”. Yet the police used them to track down the Proud Boys.

    What is going on in the NYPD?

    “Ahead of the speech, vandals smashed windows, filled a keypad lock with glue and spray-painted the doors of the Metropolitan Republican Club. A note left at the scene said the damage was “just the beginning.”

    Until they are rounded up and put back on their meds en masse, I suppose so.

  44. On the free speech front, you guys have to see the videos of these chad zoomers asking Charlie Kirk LLC from the right on his college tour. Example

    https://twitter.com/GoyGroyper/status/1189340350428651527

    Makes me think we’re all gonna make it bros

    • Replies: @Tusk
    @Not My Economy

    We need to move back to the era of the Laughing/Happy Warrior, such as that of Rothbard, in that laughing in the face of the enemy boosts your morale while weakening theirs.

    Replies: @Not My Economy

  45. I’m trying to come up with a combination of “monster” and “retard” to describe this homunculus, but “monstard” just doesn’t do it somehow.

    We aren’t going to be able to share a country with these people.

  46. @Paleo Liberal
    I want everyone to realize a few things:

    1. Most of the people who read and comment on WaPo articles are liberals.

    2. Pretty much 100% of the comments I read were highly critical of the article.

    3. That means that almost 100% of the liberals who commented on the article disagreed with it. Also 100% of the few conservatives.

    In other words, those of us on the left of the political spectrum are not ruled by elitist woke authoritarians. At least not yet.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Moses, @216

    That may be the case, but could you imagine an op-ed like that being published in a mainstream media publication a generation ago? I mean all the Arab diplomats I know think free speech is crazy, what more evidence do you need to know it’s a bad idea? Those silly Enlightenment thinkers, they probably were against stoning people too, amazing!

    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Unladen Swallow

    One of the things we take for granted is the ability to say just about whatever we want here in America.

    I don't think many Americans really want to give up that right.

    What I don't know is how many Americans want other Americans to stop saying things they disagree with so much that they would be willing to adopt hate speech laws to force them to shut up, at least in public.

    People don't realize how important it is to know what your fellow Americans are thinking. Forcing critical speech to go private means that when things are changing, if the country was coming under the influence of a dangerous ideology that we wouldn't know it because of hate speech laws. It is the strongest societies that allow free speech because they're willing to accept the annoyance of listening and reading hateful and obnoxious things in exchange for all the positives of free speech.

    Richard Stengel is dead wrong here. I am sorry he was ever part of our diplomatic corp. That Arab diplomats and burning the Koran helped to convince him that hate speech laws are a good thing is scary.

    But notice how so many of the the people who have limited rights in their home countries want to come to the US to live and work. I see no reason to change what we have been doing. What we need is far more of our elites to come out in support of free speech, not fewer.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @dfordoom

  47. @Not My Economy
    On the free speech front, you guys have to see the videos of these chad zoomers asking Charlie Kirk LLC from the right on his college tour. Example

    https://twitter.com/GoyGroyper/status/1189340350428651527

    Makes me think we're all gonna make it bros

    Replies: @Tusk

    We need to move back to the era of the Laughing/Happy Warrior, such as that of Rothbard, in that laughing in the face of the enemy boosts your morale while weakening theirs.

    • Replies: @Not My Economy
    @Tusk

    >the Laughing/Happy Warrior
    >laughing in the face of the enemy boosts your morale while weakening theirs.

    Yes these videos are big 2016 campaign energy

    Maybe it will happen again

    related: the primary reason they crack down on right wing street fighting is because they dont want us to figure out how fun it is

  48. Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination.

    It makes a boo-boo on my feelsies….

  49. Anon[868] • Disclaimer says:

    Richard Stengel seems to be vying for the position of First Scapegoat whose persecution can reunite this nation under a bipartisan re-affirmation of its founding principles. What that persecution includes remains unstated, but one can look to ancient scapegoats for an idea. Its a dirty, thankless job but bless him for applying.

    … Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance.

    “Political speech that counters my political interests diminishes tolerance for my political interests”.

    It enables discrimination.

    “Discrimination against your interests is better than discrimination against mine”.

    Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law?

    “This nations “values” are defined by their ability to facilitate my political interests,

    even if that means that those values legally can’t apply to the political interests of others”.

    “Why shouldn’t 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? “

    “It would be cool to be able to legally penalize anyone who has political interests that are antithetical to those of any political group who can define themselves as a legally privielged religious or ethnic category. Protected monopolies work in business, so why not politics”?

  50. @Tusk
    @Not My Economy

    We need to move back to the era of the Laughing/Happy Warrior, such as that of Rothbard, in that laughing in the face of the enemy boosts your morale while weakening theirs.

    Replies: @Not My Economy

    >the Laughing/Happy Warrior
    >laughing in the face of the enemy boosts your morale while weakening theirs.

    Yes these videos are big 2016 campaign energy

    Maybe it will happen again

    related: the primary reason they crack down on right wing street fighting is because they dont want us to figure out how fun it is

  51. “… Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination. Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law?”

    We have to kill speech, in order to save it.

  52. the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law

    Stengel hasn’t actually read the first amendment, has he? After all, it doesn’t mention fairness. In fact, my whole life people have been telling me that life isn’t fair.

    • Agree: sayless
  53. @indocon
    In all these type of articles, there's no point reading the body text, go straight to reader comments and see what the reaction is, I scrolled through maybe first 100 comments and only 3 -4 were mildly supportive of the authors argument. There is hope after all. Here was one of the funnier comments: "I find this article offensive and hateful maybe you should be arrested for writing it"

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Liberals like to be smug and say “never read the comments”. That’s because liberals are allergic to dissenting opinions.

    They also like to mute people on Twitter, then brag about it.

  54. Is this Haight speech? Am I in trouble, now?

  55. Straight out of the cultural marxist playbook.

    Better say this while I can:

    I wonder if there’s something to that “commie jews” stuff the squares were talking about in the 1970s?

    Your response, Richard Stengler?

  56. 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?

    It’s a fair question.

    It is indeed a fair question, because burning stuff is not actually speech. A mere fifty years ago or so, we used to point this out to liberals who insisted that the First Amendment protected flag-burning!

    This “marketplace” 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.

    Let me help: true ideas are the ones that work in practice; false ones don’t. If no such criterion exists, then it’s not a question of truth and falsity at all, but merely a matter of opinion.

    All clear now?

    Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination.

    But calling an opinion ‘hate’ is a form of intolerance and a way of discriminating against certain groups of people who hold that opinion.

    … OK, this is like fishing in a barrel. I think I’ll stop now.

    • Agree: jim jones
  57. Remember when the essence of liberalism was that the 14th Amendment meant that the 1st Amendment applied to state governments?

    Yes and it was an unmitigated disaster to pass* the 14th at all rather than expanding the 13th to replace prisons with an absolute State power to exclude/exile anyone for any reason whatsoever from residence.

    *Argue about its passage after the above point is agreed to.

  58. @Kamisama
    @AndrewR

    I don't think 'hate' laws were ever meant to criminalise 'hate' in general. It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, 'minority protection' laws. They exist purely to further the social engineering agenda.

    Replies: @Moses, @Anonymous, @Pat Kittle

    It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, ‘minority protection’ laws.

    I think you mean “‘non-White protection’ laws.”

    Whites are about 8% of the world population, and about to dip into a minority in our own countries.

    Using the word “minority” when you mean “non-Whites” perpetuates the impression that Whites are still dominant over put-upon, oppressed “minorities.”

    We ain’t. And soon.

    Use “non-White” instead of “minority.” It puts the focus in the correct place.

    Words matter.

    • Agree: Dtbb
    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Moses
    @Moses

    Whites are 45% of NYC, non-Whites are 55%. For LA it's 29% White, 71% non-White.

    Whites are a minority (in the true sense of the word) in many (most?) large American cities.

    Does it make sense to use the word "minorities" when referring to non-Whites in those cities? Then don't.

    Purge "minorities" from your vocabulary. Use "non-White" instead. It's far more accurate.

    Words matter. Alinsky knew it. The left knows it, and takes action.

    Why else does the left issue style guides to their propagandists journalists instructing them to use phrases like "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal alien"?

    Don't accept the left's frame. Do not aid the enemy. Choose your words carefully.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    , @AndrewR
    @Moses

    "Whites are about 8% of the world population"

    Way to pull random numbers out of your ass

    Replies: @Moses

  59. @Enemy of Earth
    Of course some want to enact "hate speech" laws to suppress views with which they disagree. When one is ignorant and cannot refute an opposing viewpoint with logic and rhetoric restricting speech is their only recourse.

    These people who want to restrict speech are retards who cannot persuade others in to adopt their idiotic world view. They remind me of spoiled brats who can only holler, "It's not fair."

    Replies: @Moses

    Due to mass immigration, those “spoiled brats” like AOC and Omar are gonna be making the laws of our land soon.

    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a non-White boot stamping on a White face – forever.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  60. @Paleo Liberal
    I want everyone to realize a few things:

    1. Most of the people who read and comment on WaPo articles are liberals.

    2. Pretty much 100% of the comments I read were highly critical of the article.

    3. That means that almost 100% of the liberals who commented on the article disagreed with it. Also 100% of the few conservatives.

    In other words, those of us on the left of the political spectrum are not ruled by elitist woke authoritarians. At least not yet.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Moses, @216

    In other words, those of us on the left of the political spectrum are not ruled by elitist woke authoritarians. At least not yet.

    Do you disavow?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Moses

    Am I supposed to spend my every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom I disagree?

    No thanks.

    Replies: @anon, @Moses

  61. @nebulafox
    @Paleo Liberal

    While I'm not naive enough to believe that the Russians don't try to influence our politics, I do find it a bit rich that our media whines about them incessantly while blatantly ignoring even more egregious offenders like Israel or China. Putin's Russia does not have the resources that the USSR did, not even close, and even the Soviets ultimately couldn't strategically win the propaganda war because nobody could deny that an American factory worker lived better than a middle-class Soviet bureaucrat. My guess is akin to yours: Putin looks at what Americans are doing with their own politics, shrugs his head in disbelief, doesn't much bother to make sense of it anymore, and does whatever he can to egg things along.

    The thing about intelligence services is that they can exacerbate political conditions: they cannot create them out of thin air, no matter how good they are. Nobody in Moscow forced Hillary to campaign in Arizona rather than Michigan, nor did they create the essentially negative image of Hillary (which was based in a kernel of reality, no less than Obama's black propaganda about Romney) that the Trump PR team pounced on. Nor does anybody bother to explain why Vladimir Putin, a former professional, would seriously attempt to recruit somebody as visibly unqualified to be a mole as Donald Trump. Trump is showy, has a big mouth, is temperamentally incapable of not doubling down, and is mercurial. No semi-competent intelligence service would go near him. Influence people around him, sure, but that's not the same thing.

    (The Soviets picked up the same nasty intelligence methods that the Tsarist secret services used and amplified them/widened their reach. Even the ideological stuff about being the vanguard of the global revolution didn't last that long: when Stalin was busy nailing the Old Bolsheviks, he took care to ensure that the largely Jewish and Latvian dominated secret police was ethnically replaced with Great Russians and Caucasians. This ultimately led to the KGB become the least ideological arm of the Soviet government: complete with the surreal scenario of Beria privately making memoranda supporting the restoration of private property. Beria had too many enemies-entirely justified ones-to survive Stalin's fall and implement his planned economic reforms, of course, but the general effect of the KGB becoming the Ohkrana with Communist slogans stuck: they did not tolerate spoiled party princelings on their turf, and it was only in the KGB where someone like Putin could have achieved upward mobility in one of the most socially static societies in the developed world circa the 1970s and 1980s.)

    Replies: @Clifford Brown

    While I’m not naive enough to believe that the Russians don’t try to influence our politics, I do find it a bit rich that our media whines about them incessantly while blatantly ignoring even more egregious offenders like Israel or China.

    If you look into most of the alleged Russian interference it becomes obvious that it was less a Russian, Chinese or Israeli op and much more likely one originating in CIA, FBI Counterintelligence and NATO circles.

    You are correct that no competent intelligence agency would invest in Trump as a Manchurian presidential candidate. The Russians rely upon the same information that pollsters and the media does. Why take a high stakes bet on a brash, reckless, unreliable billionaire loudmouth when basically every other normal presidential candidate is for sale at a reasonable price through the usual channels?

  62. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that The First Amendment protects “hate speech”. So now the liberal elites are cheerleading for states’ rights.

  63. But it’s not 1939 anymore, so we can’t afford free speech in these scarier times…

    We need to go back to the level playing field when I, as editor of Time magazine, could personally put a massive thumb on the scale of the national conversation…

    From Time re conscription in August 1940:

    A Gallup Poll taken at May’s end showed that the U. S. was divided half for, half against conscription. Last week another poll showed two-thirds of the U. S. people (67%) favored conscription. But also last week this majority seemed about to be defeated…

    Citizens wondering how the majority could be thus dillied, did well to look toward La Salle and Randolph Streets in Chicago. At that busy corner, one day last week, a white horse stood. On the horse was Miss Elane Summers, 19, a Rockford (Ill.) College sophomore, in a Revolutionary getup which was supposed to make her resemble Paul Revere (see cut,p.11). Calling herself Pauline Revere, Miss Summers admonished the U. S.: “MOBILIZE FOR PEACE—DEFEAT CONSCRIPTION.” Said alliterative Papa Summers (who in 1938 denounced Communists for luring his son Thane to death in Loyalist Spain): “. . . My pink daughter … [on] a white horse … a pretty puppet is paraded to propagandize against American preparedness . . . [by] Stalin’s subtle stooges.”

    Symbolized by this puppet Pauline was the bulk of last week’s “popular” opposition to conscription…

    A natural target for this barrage was the man who stood head & shoulders above other Congressional oppositionists: Montana’s distinguished chameleon, Senator BURTON KENDALL WHEELER. Changeable on many things, but long against war, armaments and intervention. Burt Wheeler last week had drawn 3,935 wires, letters, postcards against conscription, 32 for it.

    About 70% of his correspondence was from women…

    Last week a letter-writer to the New York Herald Tribune, Author David Cohn of Mississippi, put the case for conscription in five simple words. He dusted off the isolationists, Democrats, Republicans and congenital do-nothings in Washington, asked in the line-of-the-week: “Where are the Americans hiding?”

    Clustered around Burton Wheeler were a potent few who by background, conviction or inherent quirk, viewed U. S. conscription with alarm. Minnesota’s ERNEST LUNDEEN (who voted against U. S. entry into World War I*)

    *So did the late Representative Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., whose son Charles this week took to the radio to advocate appeasing Adolf Hitler.


    Time
    magazine. Not just a rag. A snotrag.

  64. @Buzz Mohawk
    Shoot me now.

    "Hate" laws of any kind are EVIL. There is not such thing as a "hate" crime. There is the crime, regardless of why it was committed.

    Speech is protected in the United States. Yes, that is an "outlier" indeed, isn't it? It is under attack by ignorant fools who know only their own generation, apparently. Even above the entrance to the library of my humble alma mater, this is carved in it's old fashioned way:

    WHO KNOWS ONLY HIS OWN GENERATION REMAINS ALWAYS A CHILD

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Hypnotoad666

    The unstated premise of this WaPo article is that: “Hey, people like me currently hold the whip-hand, so we could ban whatever we wanted if that pesky First Amendment wasn’t in the way. That would be so cool to just silence our deplorable adversaries.”

    If this moron were in the minority and fundamentalist Christians (or whomever he hates most), were in a position to shut him down, there is a 100% chance he would be screaming about his own “rights” to dissent.

    But for now he can’t conceive of the possibility that his own fashionable views aren’t inherently “correct.” There is no sense of reciprocity or mutual respect in him. Just self-righteousness. It’s why these leftists are so dangerous. They believe they are humanitarians but they are actually cryptofascists.

    Here, for example, he admits that he doesn’t even believe in objective reality or the rationality of humans:

    no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood

    To him, there is no reasoning process. “Truth” is just the power to “drive out” dissent. And he believes he and his ilk are the only ones entitled to wield this power. These NYT and WaPo types really are dangerous.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Hypnotoad666


    If this moron were in the minority and fundamentalist Christians (or whomever he hates most), were in a position to shut him down, there is a 100% chance he would be screaming about his own “rights” to dissent.
     
    Sure. Remember "Berkeley "Free Speech" movement? All the books and movies about how McCarthyism was bad? In those days, Leftists didn't say it was OK for movie studios to blacklist you because that was private action and the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private action. Instead they cried about the injustice of ruining people's lives for their political beliefs.

    It turns out that the Left was never against McCarthyism, they were against being the SUBJECTS of McCarthyism. Doing it to other people is fine.

  65. @kaganovitch
    Hell, if you can't rely on "sophisticated Arab diplomats" to properly understand the rights of Americans, who can you rely on?

    Replies: @hhsiii, @El Dato

    Anyway some of these Arab diplomats will be incinerated when we come and see (giggle!), so who cares about what they say.

    First off all, let’s lock down any discussion about the Holocaust and make criticism of Israel a criminal act.

    “Democracy dies in darkness and we will make sure of that”.

  66. @War for Blair Mountain
    The Democratic Party wants War with Christian Russian...What other conclusion can one draw?

    Replies: @216

    Any hate speech law would differ in how it is written, and more importantly how it is enforced and interpreted by the courts.

    A major problem for the long-term success of the Right in this country is that left-wing comedians and professors can basically defame their voters at will.

    Obviously given the European experience, we can expect a left-liberal court system to define “Anti-Christian” narrowly, and “Islamophobic” broadly.

    But what precisely are we gaining in support for free speech absolutism?

    Moderates may like the nebulous idea of the Constitution, but they like the practical matter of civility far more.

    Suffer the loss of Steve Sailer to take down Stephen Colbert.

  67. @Paleo Liberal
    I want everyone to realize a few things:

    1. Most of the people who read and comment on WaPo articles are liberals.

    2. Pretty much 100% of the comments I read were highly critical of the article.

    3. That means that almost 100% of the liberals who commented on the article disagreed with it. Also 100% of the few conservatives.

    In other words, those of us on the left of the political spectrum are not ruled by elitist woke authoritarians. At least not yet.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Moses, @216

    1. The Washington Post is 100% owned by a vengeful oligarch, J. Bezos

    2. Mr. Bezos is willing to spend considerable losses at this paper to drive traffic and gain influence.

    3. Anything published in the Post can be presumed to be done with the implicit permission of Bezos, note the dearth of pro-union articles and columns.

    4. It is laughable to call this system “fair” when left-liberals are 90-95% of journolists and academics.

    Affirmative Action for the Right

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @216

    Affirmative action for right wing journalists?

    Isn’t that what Rupert Murdoch has done his entire life?

  68. Washington Post: First Amendment Shouldn’t Apply to States Censoring Political Speech They Hate

    I can think of a couple places where they might start with the WaPo.

  69. @Moses
    @Kamisama


    It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, ‘minority protection’ laws.
     
    I think you mean "'non-White protection' laws."

    Whites are about 8% of the world population, and about to dip into a minority in our own countries.

    Using the word "minority" when you mean "non-Whites" perpetuates the impression that Whites are still dominant over put-upon, oppressed "minorities."

    We ain't. And soon.

    Use "non-White" instead of "minority." It puts the focus in the correct place.

    Words matter.

    Replies: @Moses, @AndrewR

    Whites are 45% of NYC, non-Whites are 55%. For LA it’s 29% White, 71% non-White.

    Whites are a minority (in the true sense of the word) in many (most?) large American cities.

    Does it make sense to use the word “minorities” when referring to non-Whites in those cities? Then don’t.

    Purge “minorities” from your vocabulary. Use “non-White” instead. It’s far more accurate.

    Words matter. Alinsky knew it. The left knows it, and takes action.

    Why else does the left issue style guides to their propagandists journalists instructing them to use phrases like “undocumented worker” instead of “illegal alien”?

    Don’t accept the left’s frame. Do not aid the enemy. Choose your words carefully.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Moses

    I was once yelled at by an angry leftist woman for using the word “minority “. It is not necessarily a word of the leftists

    Replies: @Moses

  70. @Justvisiting
    The first amendment was written by dead white male slaveholders--the new enlightened Amerika will have no need for such things. (White man bad, therefore white man speech bad.)

    This cannot end well.

    Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster, @awry

    “The first amendment was written by dead white male slaveholders…”

    Clearly, the objective is to go from dead white male slaveholders to alive white male slaves.

    Yes, this will not end will.

  71. @Justvisiting
    The first amendment was written by dead white male slaveholders--the new enlightened Amerika will have no need for such things. (White man bad, therefore white man speech bad.)

    This cannot end well.

    Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster, @awry

    The peculiarities of the US Constitution have outlived their usefulness for the elite, they are part of the global elite now. The fact that the US is an outlier allowed the freedom of the internet, which has become a danger for this elite. The future is a strictly controlled and censored online space, like that of China.
    2016 has showed to them that they can lose control of the narrative, controlling the “national institutions” of the MSM isn’t enough anymore in the age of social media. Before that, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, Time, Newsweek etc. etc. functioned as a “Ministry of Truth” for them, not anymore.
    So the obvious solution for them is to end this free speech nonsense for all. “Hate speech is not free speech”, “Free speech is not freedom from the consequences” (including from being declared Vogelfrei) are already the accepted soundbites among woke young people.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @awry

    Vogelfrei? Did someone say Vogelfrei?

    https://youtu.be/QxIWDmmqZzY

    Scenes from the old white California - a world that no longer exists. Might as well be Pompeii. And look at that Nazi flag behind the stage. Well I never.

    Replies: @Alden, @BB753

  72. @Moses
    @Kamisama


    It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, ‘minority protection’ laws.
     
    I think you mean "'non-White protection' laws."

    Whites are about 8% of the world population, and about to dip into a minority in our own countries.

    Using the word "minority" when you mean "non-Whites" perpetuates the impression that Whites are still dominant over put-upon, oppressed "minorities."

    We ain't. And soon.

    Use "non-White" instead of "minority." It puts the focus in the correct place.

    Words matter.

    Replies: @Moses, @AndrewR

    “Whites are about 8% of the world population”

    Way to pull random numbers out of your ass

    • Replies: @Moses
    @AndrewR


    “Whites are about 8% of the world population”

    Way to pull random numbers out of your ass
     

    Where else would I pull it from? By all means supply your own ass number. (Oh, you didn’t.)

    Yucks aside, it’s irrelevant if the current White % of world population is 5%, 8%, 10% or 18%.

    The fact is Whites are a minority.

    We are becoming more a minority every day, both in the world and in our home countries.

    An iSteve commenter once wrote “We’re all Jews now. Time to act like it.”

    Indeed.

    Replies: @AndrewR

  73. It’s safe to say Richard Stengel’s family wasn’t in America when the 1st or 14th Amendments were written and ratified.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Redneck farmer

    His mother's maiden name was 'Anderson', so quite possibly when the 14th was ratified.

    , @Jane Plain
    @Redneck farmer

    Casey Stengel was Jewish?

  74. Yes, America needs a hate speech law:

    Make hate speech mandatory

  75. It is funny how American bougie boneheads tend to reflexively assume every foreigner is “sophisticated” simply because they are foreign.

  76. @tanabear

    In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral
     
    Despite all the hype over the last three years about, Russians hacking our election; Russians attacking our democracy; Russian disinformation campaigns and Russian bots etc...

    I challenge anyone to name one false belief that Americans had due to a Russian disinformation campaign? Because I can certainly give false beliefs Americans hold due to disinformation from western intelligence and western media.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @Rohirrimborn

    I challenge anyone to name one false belief that Americans had due to a Russian disinformation campaign?

    Going back to soviet days the belief that Sacco and Vanzetti were framed.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Rohirrimborn

    And that House UnAmerican Activities Committee and Senator McCarthy were wrong about the numerous communists working for the federal government

    , @anon
    @Rohirrimborn

    And that the Rosenbergs were innocent.

    Replies: @Jack D

  77. Canada has no First Amendment free speech laws. The result of this is that the Canadian branch of the Jewish lobby pushed Canada to adopt “hate speech” legislation.

    In Canada people have been jailed, had their homes raided and computers seized, and have been silenced by court order for saying critical or satirical things about Jews online.

    A word to America: you are a beacon of light. Defend your First Amendment by any means necessary. Those pushing hate speech laws are out to destroy what makes America great.

  78. @Moses
    @Paleo Liberal


    In other words, those of us on the left of the political spectrum are not ruled by elitist woke authoritarians. At least not yet.

     

    Do you disavow?

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    Am I supposed to spend my every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom I disagree?

    No thanks.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Paleo Liberal

    Am I supposed to spend my every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom I disagree?

    Not yet. That won't be required until your comrades move you into "deplorable" status.

    , @Moses
    @Paleo Liberal


    Am I supposed to spend my every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom I disagree?

    No thanks.
     

    No one suggested you spend every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom you disagree. That's your own hallucination.

    I asked if you, a leftist, would disavow the efforts to limit free speech, a fundamental American value.

    You declined. Got it.

  79. @Moses
    @Moses

    Whites are 45% of NYC, non-Whites are 55%. For LA it's 29% White, 71% non-White.

    Whites are a minority (in the true sense of the word) in many (most?) large American cities.

    Does it make sense to use the word "minorities" when referring to non-Whites in those cities? Then don't.

    Purge "minorities" from your vocabulary. Use "non-White" instead. It's far more accurate.

    Words matter. Alinsky knew it. The left knows it, and takes action.

    Why else does the left issue style guides to their propagandists journalists instructing them to use phrases like "undocumented worker" instead of "illegal alien"?

    Don't accept the left's frame. Do not aid the enemy. Choose your words carefully.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    I was once yelled at by an angry leftist woman for using the word “minority “. It is not necessarily a word of the leftists

    • Replies: @Moses
    @Paleo Liberal


    I was once yelled at by an angry leftist woman for using the word “minority “. It is not necessarily a word of the leftists
     
    Lol. That a leftist loon once got upset at you for using the word “minority” does not mean it isn’t a preferred word of the left/media generally to speak of non-Whites. Using “Minority” helps buttress the narrative that Whites are super dominant, non-Whites far outnumbered and powerless.

    Do you always make sweeping generalizations on a sample size of one?

    Pay attention to context when you see that word. Collect a larger sample size. You’ll begin to get the point.

    When was the last time you saw

    “Affirmative action employer. Non-Whites and women encouraged to apply.”

    Instead of

    “Affirmative action employer. Minorities and women encouraged to apply.”
  80. Washington Post: First Amendment Shouldn’t Apply to States Censoring Political Speech They Hate

    One more proof that Democracy doesn’t work…stupid are allowed to vote.

  81. @216
    @Paleo Liberal

    1. The Washington Post is 100% owned by a vengeful oligarch, J. Bezos

    2. Mr. Bezos is willing to spend considerable losses at this paper to drive traffic and gain influence.

    3. Anything published in the Post can be presumed to be done with the implicit permission of Bezos, note the dearth of pro-union articles and columns.

    4. It is laughable to call this system "fair" when left-liberals are 90-95% of journolists and academics.

    Affirmative Action for the Right

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    Affirmative action for right wing journalists?

    Isn’t that what Rupert Murdoch has done his entire life?

  82. If “hate speech laws” existed in the United States as they do in Canada, this website would be illegal.

    Ron Unz, Steve Sailer, Kevin McDonald, and almost every writer here would be arrested and charged for “inciting hate against identifiable groups”. Their computers would be taken by authorities and searched for evidence of “hate”, specifically, things said about Jews. They’d be handcuffed when brought in for questioning, as has happened in Canada. They’d be forbidden from publishing online, under threat of imprisonment.

    Anyone can file a “hate speech” complaint, which the authorities are strongly obliged to investigate. . B’nai B’rith Canada is a full time watchdog looking to make examples of anyone who steps out of line, just as they do in Australia, Britain, and anywhere else they have the legal means to put a boot on our necks. They are the law.

  83. Funny that Bolshevik hates free speech.

    Who could have predicted it?

  84. Richard Stengel

    Chairperson and CEO of the National Constitution Center
    In office
    March 1, 2004 – June 1, 2006

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stengel

    Stengel is an expert on The Constitution. In much the same way that a butcher is an expert on cows.

    It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn’t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society.

    He’s assuming he is one of the “good guys”. He doesn’t sound like on to me.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Mr. Anon

    His career, like that of Jay Carney, is a testament to the degree to which major media and the Democratic Party are part of the same social nexus. I think it may have been RM Kaus had an inventory a while back of the number of major media figures married to Obama Administration officials or 1st degree relatives of Obama Administration officials. IIRC, there were a couple dozen.

  85. @Paleo Liberal
    @Moses

    I was once yelled at by an angry leftist woman for using the word “minority “. It is not necessarily a word of the leftists

    Replies: @Moses

    I was once yelled at by an angry leftist woman for using the word “minority “. It is not necessarily a word of the leftists

    Lol. That a leftist loon once got upset at you for using the word “minority” does not mean it isn’t a preferred word of the left/media generally to speak of non-Whites. Using “Minority” helps buttress the narrative that Whites are super dominant, non-Whites far outnumbered and powerless.

    Do you always make sweeping generalizations on a sample size of one?

    Pay attention to context when you see that word. Collect a larger sample size. You’ll begin to get the point.

    When was the last time you saw

    “Affirmative action employer. Non-Whites and women encouraged to apply.”

    Instead of

    “Affirmative action employer. Minorities and women encouraged to apply.”

  86. 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?

    And if you can’t rely on some functionary of an Arab state for advice on freedom, who can you rely on?

    • LOL: Moses, BB753
  87. @J.Ross
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Our Bill of Rights has an almost arithmetic perfection because it avoids convenient preferences, but hate crime laws are a kind of broken math, 2+2 equalling 4, 5, 6, 7 and everything else, because they depend totally on who is in power.
    It's like Jack D responding to defamation and false accusations: he feels all kinds of ways about defamation depending on the religio-ethnic group of the accused.
    Disagree: Johann Ricke

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Nice touch.

  88. Deepocrats

    DEEPOCRATS

  89. @Achmed E. Newman

    I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.
     
    Yeah, come to think of it, no other countries have a purported Constitutional Republic either. A constraining Constitution is a real outlier among the nations of the developed world ... the whole thing is really out of order in the current era.

    "You're out of order, you're out of order, this whole trial is out of order!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA0glbG6c-8

    BTW, it's nothing new, this comparing America to the "rest of the developed world". The left has been saying this stuff forever, whether it was opposition to Communism or low gas taxes. Due process and rule of laws, not men, worked great when they were dirty, stinking hippies trying to stay out of jail for incitement-of-a-riot charges. Now the left has no use for this stuff anymore.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Bob G.

    Gun ownership . . .

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Bob G.

    Thank you, Bob. If I had sat back for just a second, I'd have thought of that (as a gun owner myself) Doh!

  90. “Hate speech” is just the present characterization of heresy and blasphemy against the present national religion of Absolute Racial Equality and Negro Veneration. Historically heresy and blasphemy could always be censured by the Church and sometimes the Church enlisted the secular authority in its efforts. Freedom of speech and of the press was a brief interregnum and now we are returning to the norm.

  91. @Hypnotoad666
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The unstated premise of this WaPo article is that: "Hey, people like me currently hold the whip-hand, so we could ban whatever we wanted if that pesky First Amendment wasn't in the way. That would be so cool to just silence our deplorable adversaries."

    If this moron were in the minority and fundamentalist Christians (or whomever he hates most), were in a position to shut him down, there is a 100% chance he would be screaming about his own "rights" to dissent.

    But for now he can't conceive of the possibility that his own fashionable views aren't inherently "correct." There is no sense of reciprocity or mutual respect in him. Just self-righteousness. It's why these leftists are so dangerous. They believe they are humanitarians but they are actually cryptofascists.

    Here, for example, he admits that he doesn't even believe in objective reality or the rationality of humans:


    no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood
     
    To him, there is no reasoning process. "Truth" is just the power to "drive out" dissent. And he believes he and his ilk are the only ones entitled to wield this power. These NYT and WaPo types really are dangerous.

    Replies: @Jack D

    If this moron were in the minority and fundamentalist Christians (or whomever he hates most), were in a position to shut him down, there is a 100% chance he would be screaming about his own “rights” to dissent.

    Sure. Remember “Berkeley “Free Speech” movement? All the books and movies about how McCarthyism was bad? In those days, Leftists didn’t say it was OK for movie studios to blacklist you because that was private action and the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to private action. Instead they cried about the injustice of ruining people’s lives for their political beliefs.

    It turns out that the Left was never against McCarthyism, they were against being the SUBJECTS of McCarthyism. Doing it to other people is fine.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman, Moses
    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  92. @Lot
    “ Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows...”

    I was also talking to some sophisticated diplomats, who couldn’t understand why our government doesn’t take the bonesaw option against corrupt jihadi-demographic-invasion-aligned journalists such as Richard Stengel.

    “ It’s a fair question.”

    Indeed.

    Also, keep this crap up Jeff, we’re not gonna forget, too bad about that cloud contract.

    https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/25/microsoft-beats-amazon-for-10-billion-pentagon-jedi-cloud-contract/

    For you all that have been using Amazon by default for a while, think about how much Prime is really worth.

    Wal-Mart and Sears and Target and eBay have comparable prices on 95% of Amazon’s items. And for the ones you really need fast, the $119 a year you save cancelling prime pays for a lot of upgraded shipping when you actually need it.

    I cancelled a couple years ago, and now I kinda like it how the stuff from other companies sometimes comes in 2 days, sometimes in 9. I forget about it, then a week later it’s like a little unexpected present.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    I’ve been boycotting amazon for years. Long before it was fashionable.

    I almost always find better prices on ebay or walmart.com.

    Jeff Bezos is a creepy little corporatist welfare queen.

  93. @Paleo Liberal
    @Moses

    Am I supposed to spend my every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom I disagree?

    No thanks.

    Replies: @anon, @Moses

    Am I supposed to spend my every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom I disagree?

    Not yet. That won’t be required until your comrades move you into “deplorable” status.

  94. @Bob G.
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Gun ownership . . .

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Thank you, Bob. If I had sat back for just a second, I’d have thought of that (as a gun owner myself) Doh!

  95. Weird how all these censors have last names -stein and -berg. Almost like Jewish people hate free speech (unless it’s pornography.)

  96. @res
    @Anonymousse


    What makes you think they’re waiting?
     
    Because they don't have sufficient power yet. If you think what we have now is bad, imagine Hillary as president right now having chosen two Supreme Court justices. I really believe the Never Trump shills around here should have a long hard think about that.

    Some are jumping the gun because they think they are powerful enough already (hence the masks coming off). And they are close, as you describe.

    But it's hard to argue with this.

    I think it’s time we made the mental shift and realize that we are ALREADY living in a dystopia.
     

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I really believe the Never Trump shills around here should have a long hard think about that.

    What “Never Trump shills”? Seriously, I’ve bad-mouthed him as much as anybody, but that doesn’t mean I’m against him. I just think he has been fucking up in so many ways and could have done SO MUCH MORE by now. The only way I’d vote against him is FOR somebody better (on our side, as Trump still seems to be, but a better executive).

    I’ve had this discussion with the old Jack Hanson, and I don’t want to have to repeat the arguments back and forth.

    BTW, I like the rest of your comment, Res, and this whole thread is good to read. The only one on here who is NOT against hate speech laws may be our host Steve Sailer, from what I’ve read. AndrewR (not picking you out, but I was about to reply) above and the rest need to understand how wise the Founding Fathers of our nation were. However, if you get really into that stuff, the alt-right guys keep bringing up that “muh Constitution” insult. Possibly they mean “it’s not gonna help you now”, and on that, I kinda agree.

    • Replies: @Jack Henson
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Normie Conservatives see Americans being dispossessed and say "well this piece of paper here says you're a free citizen of a Republic bucko" in response to some very real problems.

    And yeah I'm sick of Trump bragging about how black rapist unemployment is at its lowest levels ever but what can you do for now?

    , @res
    @Achmed E. Newman


    What “Never Trump shills”?
     
    I think this is the most notable (I believe he changed handles):
    https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=boethius
    https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=boethiuss
  97. @Paleo Liberal
    @tanabear

    I am sad to say it is trivially easy for me to come up with a false belief widely held by Americans that was the result of a Russian disinformation campaign.

    In the early 1980s, an operative in the Kremlin invented a conspiracy theory that AIDS was developed in a US government laboratory, for the purpose of wiping out “undesirable “ people.

    Thing is, scientifically speaking, this is impossible.

    After the Cold War ended, the former Soviet operative admitted to making the whole thing up.

    I was naive enough that I mentioned that in a science class I was teaching the next day, hoping to use that as a lesson on how to evaluate conspiracy theories. I was shouted down by many of my students, especially those who were black.

    So there is an example.

    The Russians don’t need to invent conspiracy theories anymore. Americans do a good enough job as it is.

    What the Russians do is amplify the conspiracy theories on the web anyway. A Russian operative in 2016 would spend one day as Mr MAGA with conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, the next day as Mr BLM with conspiracy theories about white cops. They didn’t light most of the fires, they weren’t the main ones spreading most of the fires, but they supplied gas for the fires. It has been claimed that there were some conspiracy theories initiated by the Russians, but I don’t know if any of these were popular.

    In an k noIt naive enough to believe the Russians somehow magically changed when Communism fell and would never, ever spread disinformation. Putin was a Communist back in the day.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    In an k noIt naive enough to believe the Russians somehow magically changed when Communism fell and would never, ever spread disinformation. Putin was a Communist back in the day.

    Why can’t they be like Americans? Americans would never, ever spread disinformation. Or interfere in the governments of other countries.

    OK, there have been one or two instances of the US interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Well OK, actually there have been dozens of instances. But apart from those dozens of isolated instances Americans would never, ever interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

  98. Of course I don’t trust Mr. Stengel’s analysis, but it seems to me that the question isn’t so simple as some commentators appear to believe. We already have many laws that infringe the freedom of speech. Slander and libel laws, for example. Logically it’s a bit challenging to state clearly why saying something false and defamatory about an individual should be a legal matter but saying something similar about a group, class or race, say, should not be. I myself am opposed to hate-speech laws because I think it’s clear that they would do far more harm than good. Specifically, certain groups of people would have a virtual immunity from criticism (as they do in practice in mainstream publications already), and that would be intolerable to me. On the other hand, a well-orchestrated chorus of “Let’s all go out and exterminate those cockroaches!” — well, when you get to incitation to mass violence, I think a little infringement is in order.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @Tono Bungay

    Incitation to violence ("fighting words") is already an exception to freedom of speech. Chaplinksky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942). There is a question of how imminent the violence is when the "fighting words" are expressed. What the advocates of hate speech laws want are to forbid any expressions that there are differences of cognitive ability and temperament between various races or between men and women; in short, they want to suppress the search for truth that is the basis of the First Amendment.

    , @Jack D
    @Tono Bungay


    We already have many laws that infringe the freedom of speech. Slander and libel laws, for example.
     
    Yes, but traditionally the Left was always pushing to do away with any limits on free speech. Libel law was trimmed back in NY Times vs. Sullivan so that it was almost impossible to libel anyone who was a "public figure". Now for perhaps the 1st time in American history the Left is the one pushing completely in the opposite direction.

    Traditionally the ruling class was the one putting limits on free speech because they didn't want anyone to challenge their power. This is how it works to this day in Egypt, Russia, China, etc. From this I conclude that the Left is now the ruling class in America.
  99. Stengel is a moron. America has a hate speech law. It’s ICCPR Article 20. The US government made a legally-void reservation to it because it would prohibit most government propaganda. The world-class free speech experts of Article 19 make the obvious point that hate speech only works for powerful people like government drones. So the prohibition should fall on them. When some broke dumb slob uses his facebook on his last dubious friend and his six million fake bot followers to incite discrimination, hostility or violence – for that is what hate speech is – everybody just laughs at him. When Schiff incites extermination of Palestinians with Zionist slogans, that’s different, because Palestinians get exterminated. So sure, apply Article 20 to that little sissy chickenshit fudgepacker Lindsay Graham*, and we’ll see how it goes. [* See? those epithets did not incite discrimination, hostility, or violence to that contemptible flouncing cocksucker, so it’s not prohibited. Before you try to have an opinion, Read the Fucking Law.]

  100. @Kamisama
    @AndrewR

    I don't think 'hate' laws were ever meant to criminalise 'hate' in general. It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, 'minority protection' laws. They exist purely to further the social engineering agenda.

    Replies: @Moses, @Anonymous, @Pat Kittle

    Women aren’t a minority but you can be sure such laws will apply to vocal critics of feminism and related causes.

  101. @Jack D

    Remember when the essence of liberalism was that the 14th Amendment meant that the 1st Amendment applied to state governments
     
    Remember when a major Leftist movement was called the "Free Speech Movement"? Remember when the Left used to argue in favor of free speech even for people who were literally Nazis? That was the Old American Left that hadn't yet fully embraced Who-whom. The Woke Left is all about who-whom. Where you sit with them depends on where you stand. Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN'T apply, so it's OK to deplatform deplorables as long as the Federal government isn't the one doing it.

    I've been waiting for the Left to realize that the incorporation doctrine was a two edged sword but I always thought that the first attack would be against the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. But the Left nowadays hates free speech even more than they hate guns.

    I think the turning point was Trump's election - they always thought that if they had the megaphone then they could bring the voters along with them. Walter Cronkite would say something negative about Vietnam and the country would follow. But Trump's election made them realize that they couldn't be sure of that anymore. The man could "Twitter" (whatever the hell that is) directly to the voters and wise men like Walter and Richard wouldn't be there to explain to us What it All Means and Why Trump is Wrong. This is driving them mad with frustration. The other day I was flipping cable channels and I saw Walter's successor, Dan Rather, doing interviews with over the hill rock stars. It was one step above selling reverse mortgages on infomercials. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @International Jew

    Remember when a major Leftist movement was called the “Free Speech Movement”? Remember when the Left used to argue in favor of free speech even for people who were literally Nazis? That was the Old American Left that hadn’t yet fully embraced Who-whom. The Woke Left is all about who-whom. Where you sit with them depends on where you stand. Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN’T apply, so it’s OK to deplatform deplorables as long as the Federal government isn’t the one doing it.

    Jack I think your view here is that of a Pollyanna.

    There was a “Free Speech Movement” from the Left when the Left lacked institutional power. The Left now possesses enormous institutional power, so it does not need a concept of “Free Speech” because Leftists can say whatever they want whenever they want however they want without fear of reprisal. It is the fact that there is still some relatively narrow space behind which non-Leftists can hide from them that they cannot abide.

    Another hobbyhorse from the 1990s was “tolerance.” Now that they have institutional power to enforce their vision, you don’t really hear about the virtues of “tolerance” anymore. The online Leftist will now post a lame meme explaining “Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance” to explain why it’s acceptable to suppress the freedoms of non-Leftists.

    “You see, ‘tolerance’ was always a faulty concept and I’m sorry we didn’t see that right up until the moment that we captured the institutional power to force our will upon the ‘intolerant.’ Why no, I’m not myself being ‘intolerant’ by suppressing your rights and freedoms, what a silly statement!”

    The only useful rubric for interpreting these people and their pretexts is:

    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Intolerance of intolerance is itself a form of intolerance.

    Or maybe leftists think intolerance is like the number -1 raised to even and odd powers!
    But of course that's the wrong model. Intolerance is like F in logic, and the operation is the logical AND.

    , @dfordoom
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)


    There was a “Free Speech Movement” from the Left when the Left lacked institutional power. The Left now possesses enormous institutional power, so it does not need a concept of “Free Speech” because Leftists can say whatever they want whenever they want however they want without fear of reprisal.
     
    It's also worth pointing out that back in the 1950s and 1960s conservatives were not overly fond of free speech. Most conservatives applauded HUAC's efforts to silence communists in Hollywood. Most conservatives liked censorship.

    Then suddenly in the 21st century conservatives decided that they cared passionately about free speech.

    So both sides are in practice equally cynical.
  102. @Tono Bungay
    Of course I don't trust Mr. Stengel's analysis, but it seems to me that the question isn't so simple as some commentators appear to believe. We already have many laws that infringe the freedom of speech. Slander and libel laws, for example. Logically it's a bit challenging to state clearly why saying something false and defamatory about an individual should be a legal matter but saying something similar about a group, class or race, say, should not be. I myself am opposed to hate-speech laws because I think it's clear that they would do far more harm than good. Specifically, certain groups of people would have a virtual immunity from criticism (as they do in practice in mainstream publications already), and that would be intolerable to me. On the other hand, a well-orchestrated chorus of "Let's all go out and exterminate those cockroaches!" -- well, when you get to incitation to mass violence, I think a little infringement is in order.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Jack D

    Incitation to violence (“fighting words”) is already an exception to freedom of speech. Chaplinksky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942). There is a question of how imminent the violence is when the “fighting words” are expressed. What the advocates of hate speech laws want are to forbid any expressions that there are differences of cognitive ability and temperament between various races or between men and women; in short, they want to suppress the search for truth that is the basis of the First Amendment.

  103. @Unladen Swallow
    @Paleo Liberal

    That may be the case, but could you imagine an op-ed like that being published in a mainstream media publication a generation ago? I mean all the Arab diplomats I know think free speech is crazy, what more evidence do you need to know it's a bad idea? Those silly Enlightenment thinkers, they probably were against stoning people too, amazing!

    Replies: @notsaying

    One of the things we take for granted is the ability to say just about whatever we want here in America.

    I don’t think many Americans really want to give up that right.

    What I don’t know is how many Americans want other Americans to stop saying things they disagree with so much that they would be willing to adopt hate speech laws to force them to shut up, at least in public.

    People don’t realize how important it is to know what your fellow Americans are thinking. Forcing critical speech to go private means that when things are changing, if the country was coming under the influence of a dangerous ideology that we wouldn’t know it because of hate speech laws. It is the strongest societies that allow free speech because they’re willing to accept the annoyance of listening and reading hateful and obnoxious things in exchange for all the positives of free speech.

    Richard Stengel is dead wrong here. I am sorry he was ever part of our diplomatic corp. That Arab diplomats and burning the Koran helped to convince him that hate speech laws are a good thing is scary.

    But notice how so many of the the people who have limited rights in their home countries want to come to the US to live and work. I see no reason to change what we have been doing. What we need is far more of our elites to come out in support of free speech, not fewer.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @notsaying

    Richard Stengel is dead wrong here. I am sorry he was ever part of our diplomatic corp. That Arab diplomats and burning the Koran helped to convince him that hate speech laws are a good thing is scary.


    For some insight into his thinking, here is his tweet regarding the article he published
    "My @WashingtonPost piece on why the very broadness of the First Amendment suggests we should have a hate speech law. And if we did, why the President might be in violation of it."

    Perhaps the follow up article could be how the very broadness of ex post facto law exclusion suggests we should have an exception for Haters. Voila! Problem solved! All the Davos attending African diplomats agree too, so there.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @dfordoom
    @notsaying


    But notice how so many of the the people who have limited rights in their home countries want to come to the US to live and work.
     
    Thy don't head for the US for the freedom. They head for the US for the money. They don't give about the freedoms.

    Replies: @notsaying

  104. @Arclight
    As garbage as the GOP is, stuff like this is a useful reminder that the left cannot and will not just leave people alone, and all policy must be geared to eliminating options for people to say or do things it doesn't agree with.

    Replies: @ATBOTL

    If the past is any indication, conservative Republicans will support laws against “hate speech” in a few years. Now that the establishment is pushing this openly, we will probably see some version of an article like “The Conservative Case For Thought Crime Laws” in National Review.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @ATBOTL

    I don't think anyone will top this one from a month ago:

    • Comment by "Hail" at September 29, 2019 5:07 AM
    "The conservative case for a permanent, left-wing supermajority."

  105. @awry
    @Justvisiting

    The peculiarities of the US Constitution have outlived their usefulness for the elite, they are part of the global elite now. The fact that the US is an outlier allowed the freedom of the internet, which has become a danger for this elite. The future is a strictly controlled and censored online space, like that of China.
    2016 has showed to them that they can lose control of the narrative, controlling the "national institutions" of the MSM isn't enough anymore in the age of social media. Before that, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, Time, Newsweek etc. etc. functioned as a "Ministry of Truth" for them, not anymore.
    So the obvious solution for them is to end this free speech nonsense for all. "Hate speech is not free speech", "Free speech is not freedom from the consequences" (including from being declared Vogelfrei) are already the accepted soundbites among woke young people.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Vogelfrei? Did someone say Vogelfrei?

    Scenes from the old white California – a world that no longer exists. Might as well be Pompeii. And look at that Nazi flag behind the stage. Well I never.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Alden
    @Jack D

    Brought tears; all that darkest brown to blonde and red hair and every shade in between.

    , @BB753
    @Jack D

    Demographics is everything. People just don't realize how much a country can change in slightly less than two generations.
    Though even today, you won't see many black or brown faces at a rock concert.

  106. Some speech is more equal.

    Right. Like anti-white speech is a helluva lot more equal than pro-white speech.

    I’ve noticed that (((the left))) has been on an anti first amendment offensive these last few weeks and will keep the pressure up until the dominoes fall in Congress for a hate speech bill and they eventually will just as they did with so called hate crimes legislation.

    To (((the left))), any person of any race who attacks and impugns white people and Western civilization is “courageous”. But any white person who defends his race, opposes mass migration, criticizes non-whites for their higher crime rates and character flaws and/or mocks any core tenets of left wing fundamentalism and they charge those white persons with “hiding behind the first amendment”.

  107. @Tono Bungay
    Of course I don't trust Mr. Stengel's analysis, but it seems to me that the question isn't so simple as some commentators appear to believe. We already have many laws that infringe the freedom of speech. Slander and libel laws, for example. Logically it's a bit challenging to state clearly why saying something false and defamatory about an individual should be a legal matter but saying something similar about a group, class or race, say, should not be. I myself am opposed to hate-speech laws because I think it's clear that they would do far more harm than good. Specifically, certain groups of people would have a virtual immunity from criticism (as they do in practice in mainstream publications already), and that would be intolerable to me. On the other hand, a well-orchestrated chorus of "Let's all go out and exterminate those cockroaches!" -- well, when you get to incitation to mass violence, I think a little infringement is in order.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Jack D

    We already have many laws that infringe the freedom of speech. Slander and libel laws, for example.

    Yes, but traditionally the Left was always pushing to do away with any limits on free speech. Libel law was trimmed back in NY Times vs. Sullivan so that it was almost impossible to libel anyone who was a “public figure”. Now for perhaps the 1st time in American history the Left is the one pushing completely in the opposite direction.

    Traditionally the ruling class was the one putting limits on free speech because they didn’t want anyone to challenge their power. This is how it works to this day in Egypt, Russia, China, etc. From this I conclude that the Left is now the ruling class in America.

    • Agree: Moses
  108. @notsaying
    @Unladen Swallow

    One of the things we take for granted is the ability to say just about whatever we want here in America.

    I don't think many Americans really want to give up that right.

    What I don't know is how many Americans want other Americans to stop saying things they disagree with so much that they would be willing to adopt hate speech laws to force them to shut up, at least in public.

    People don't realize how important it is to know what your fellow Americans are thinking. Forcing critical speech to go private means that when things are changing, if the country was coming under the influence of a dangerous ideology that we wouldn't know it because of hate speech laws. It is the strongest societies that allow free speech because they're willing to accept the annoyance of listening and reading hateful and obnoxious things in exchange for all the positives of free speech.

    Richard Stengel is dead wrong here. I am sorry he was ever part of our diplomatic corp. That Arab diplomats and burning the Koran helped to convince him that hate speech laws are a good thing is scary.

    But notice how so many of the the people who have limited rights in their home countries want to come to the US to live and work. I see no reason to change what we have been doing. What we need is far more of our elites to come out in support of free speech, not fewer.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @dfordoom

    Richard Stengel is dead wrong here. I am sorry he was ever part of our diplomatic corp. That Arab diplomats and burning the Koran helped to convince him that hate speech laws are a good thing is scary.

    For some insight into his thinking, here is his tweet regarding the article he published
    “My @WashingtonPost piece on why the very broadness of the First Amendment suggests we should have a hate speech law. And if we did, why the President might be in violation of it.”

    Perhaps the follow up article could be how the very broadness of ex post facto law exclusion suggests we should have an exception for Haters. Voila! Problem solved! All the Davos attending African diplomats agree too, so there.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @kaganovitch

    Leftists can never see past the short term. Orange Man is in the White House so we need special laws that will get rid of Orange Man. This will backfire on us and these same laws will get used against us at a later date? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. The main thing is that we get rid of Orange Man now, by any and all means.

    Tonight I was channel flipping and on CNN they were calling Trump a liar because they could not verify that Baghdadi was "whimpering and crying and screaming all the way" as Orange Man said. CNN is like Art Deco writ large. Maybe Mr. B was only whimpering and crying and screaming HALF way. Maybe he was screaming but not whimpering or crying. How did Trump even hear him? The man is a liar I tell you, a liar.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  109. @Achmed E. Newman
    @res


    I really believe the Never Trump shills around here should have a long hard think about that.
     
    What "Never Trump shills"? Seriously, I've bad-mouthed him as much as anybody, but that doesn't mean I'm against him. I just think he has been fucking up in so many ways and could have done SO MUCH MORE by now. The only way I'd vote against him is FOR somebody better (on our side, as Trump still seems to be, but a better executive).

    I've had this discussion with the old Jack Hanson, and I don't want to have to repeat the arguments back and forth.

    BTW, I like the rest of your comment, Res, and this whole thread is good to read. The only one on here who is NOT against hate speech laws may be our host Steve Sailer, from what I've read. AndrewR (not picking you out, but I was about to reply) above and the rest need to understand how wise the Founding Fathers of our nation were. However, if you get really into that stuff, the alt-right guys keep bringing up that "muh Constitution" insult. Possibly they mean "it's not gonna help you now", and on that, I kinda agree.

    Replies: @Jack Henson, @res

    Normie Conservatives see Americans being dispossessed and say “well this piece of paper here says you’re a free citizen of a Republic bucko” in response to some very real problems.

    And yeah I’m sick of Trump bragging about how black rapist unemployment is at its lowest levels ever but what can you do for now?

  110. Donald Trump is probably an example of why we shouldn’t have hate speech laws in that he says just about anything that comes into his head, apparently.

    He reveals himself.

    That should make the people who don’t like him and what he thinks happy. They know the truth, like it or not. Knowing the truth is the best thing, given the alternatives.

    I can’t think of anything Trump has said that I would arrest him for.

    I wonder what Richard Stengel would have him arrested for?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @notsaying

    Anything and everything.

    In another thread, someone mentioned the Russian Imperial Minister of the Interior Durnovo, who famously wrote a letter predicting that the Czarist system would not survive a war with Germany. Durnovo died in 1912 and between then and the Revolution there were 8 more ministers who succeed him and ALL of them (except for 1) were executed by the Bolsheviks. Beria famously boasted, "show me the man and I will show you the crime."

  111. @Kamisama
    @AndrewR

    I don't think 'hate' laws were ever meant to criminalise 'hate' in general. It would bring some clarity if they were called what they actually are, 'minority protection' laws. They exist purely to further the social engineering agenda.

    Replies: @Moses, @Anonymous, @Pat Kittle

    I don’t think ‘hate’ laws were ever meant to criminalise ‘hate’ in general…. They exist purely to further the social engineering agenda.

    That social engineering agenda is nothing less than White genocide — both the “soft” & hard versions.

  112. @AndrewR
    @Moses

    "Whites are about 8% of the world population"

    Way to pull random numbers out of your ass

    Replies: @Moses

    “Whites are about 8% of the world population”

    Way to pull random numbers out of your ass

    Where else would I pull it from? By all means supply your own ass number. (Oh, you didn’t.)

    Yucks aside, it’s irrelevant if the current White % of world population is 5%, 8%, 10% or 18%.

    The fact is Whites are a minority.

    We are becoming more a minority every day, both in the world and in our home countries.

    An iSteve commenter once wrote “We’re all Jews now. Time to act like it.”

    Indeed.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Moses

    Every "race" is a "minority" globally, as it's been for tens of thousands of years.

  113. @kaganovitch
    @notsaying

    Richard Stengel is dead wrong here. I am sorry he was ever part of our diplomatic corp. That Arab diplomats and burning the Koran helped to convince him that hate speech laws are a good thing is scary.


    For some insight into his thinking, here is his tweet regarding the article he published
    "My @WashingtonPost piece on why the very broadness of the First Amendment suggests we should have a hate speech law. And if we did, why the President might be in violation of it."

    Perhaps the follow up article could be how the very broadness of ex post facto law exclusion suggests we should have an exception for Haters. Voila! Problem solved! All the Davos attending African diplomats agree too, so there.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Leftists can never see past the short term. Orange Man is in the White House so we need special laws that will get rid of Orange Man. This will backfire on us and these same laws will get used against us at a later date? We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. The main thing is that we get rid of Orange Man now, by any and all means.

    Tonight I was channel flipping and on CNN they were calling Trump a liar because they could not verify that Baghdadi was “whimpering and crying and screaming all the way” as Orange Man said. CNN is like Art Deco writ large. Maybe Mr. B was only whimpering and crying and screaming HALF way. Maybe he was screaming but not whimpering or crying. How did Trump even hear him? The man is a liar I tell you, a liar.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Jack D

    Leftists can never see past the short term. Orange Man is in the White House so we need special laws that will get rid of Orange Man. This will backfire on us and these same laws will get used against us at a later date? We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. The main thing is that we get rid of Orange Man now, by any and all means.

    I think it's the eschatological nature of Leftism- the right side of History, the Ineluctable March of Progress, etc. etc. that skews their thinking this way. After all, if your permanent victory is all but assured, why be concerned about when you will not be holding the whip hand? When the future is your elegantly shod foot stamping on the deplorables faces forever , why worry?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @nebulafox

  114. @notsaying
    Donald Trump is probably an example of why we shouldn't have hate speech laws in that he says just about anything that comes into his head, apparently.

    He reveals himself.

    That should make the people who don't like him and what he thinks happy. They know the truth, like it or not. Knowing the truth is the best thing, given the alternatives.

    I can't think of anything Trump has said that I would arrest him for.

    I wonder what Richard Stengel would have him arrested for?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Anything and everything.

    In another thread, someone mentioned the Russian Imperial Minister of the Interior Durnovo, who famously wrote a letter predicting that the Czarist system would not survive a war with Germany. Durnovo died in 1912 and between then and the Revolution there were 8 more ministers who succeed him and ALL of them (except for 1) were executed by the Bolsheviks. Beria famously boasted, “show me the man and I will show you the crime.”

  115. @Rohirrimborn
    @tanabear


    I challenge anyone to name one false belief that Americans had due to a Russian disinformation campaign?
     
    Going back to soviet days the belief that Sacco and Vanzetti were framed.

    Replies: @Alden, @anon

    And that House UnAmerican Activities Committee and Senator McCarthy were wrong about the numerous communists working for the federal government

  116. @Jack D
    @awry

    Vogelfrei? Did someone say Vogelfrei?

    https://youtu.be/QxIWDmmqZzY

    Scenes from the old white California - a world that no longer exists. Might as well be Pompeii. And look at that Nazi flag behind the stage. Well I never.

    Replies: @Alden, @BB753

    Brought tears; all that darkest brown to blonde and red hair and every shade in between.

  117. @Jack D
    @kaganovitch

    Leftists can never see past the short term. Orange Man is in the White House so we need special laws that will get rid of Orange Man. This will backfire on us and these same laws will get used against us at a later date? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. The main thing is that we get rid of Orange Man now, by any and all means.

    Tonight I was channel flipping and on CNN they were calling Trump a liar because they could not verify that Baghdadi was "whimpering and crying and screaming all the way" as Orange Man said. CNN is like Art Deco writ large. Maybe Mr. B was only whimpering and crying and screaming HALF way. Maybe he was screaming but not whimpering or crying. How did Trump even hear him? The man is a liar I tell you, a liar.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Leftists can never see past the short term. Orange Man is in the White House so we need special laws that will get rid of Orange Man. This will backfire on us and these same laws will get used against us at a later date? We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. The main thing is that we get rid of Orange Man now, by any and all means.

    I think it’s the eschatological nature of Leftism- the right side of History, the Ineluctable March of Progress, etc. etc. that skews their thinking this way. After all, if your permanent victory is all but assured, why be concerned about when you will not be holding the whip hand? When the future is your elegantly shod foot stamping on the deplorables faces forever , why worry?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @kaganovitch

    if your permanent victory is all but assured

    I believe this is why the election of Trump drove them so crazy. Though their eventual permanent victory is a done deal thanks to demographics, to them it is like a violation of the natural order that they could have a setback of four or even eight years. Also, having to deal with the realization of how many of their fellow citizens hate what they're doing.

    , @nebulafox
    @kaganovitch

    There's two stubborn strains in the American psyche: the idea that human nature is perfectable and the purpose of the United States is to created God's community on Earth (Puritanism) and the desire to run free with minimal external authority, with a visceral reaction against anyone who isn't kin or something similarly respected telling you what to do (Scots-Irish).

    Is it any wonder that these desires are constantly at loggerheads?

    >After all, if your permanent victory is all but assured, why be concerned about when you will not be holding the whip hand?

    It's also why they react to rejection-or worse, open mockery-so negatively. People aren't disagreeing with them in their view, they are rebelling against the inevitable righteous order of things, which conveniently places them, The Elect, in the role of Guiders.

  118. @Paleo Liberal
    @Moses

    Am I supposed to spend my every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom I disagree?

    No thanks.

    Replies: @anon, @Moses

    Am I supposed to spend my every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom I disagree?

    No thanks.

    No one suggested you spend every waking hour disavowing every opinion columnist with whom you disagree. That’s your own hallucination.

    I asked if you, a leftist, would disavow the efforts to limit free speech, a fundamental American value.

    You declined. Got it.

  119. @Achmed E. Newman
    @res


    I really believe the Never Trump shills around here should have a long hard think about that.
     
    What "Never Trump shills"? Seriously, I've bad-mouthed him as much as anybody, but that doesn't mean I'm against him. I just think he has been fucking up in so many ways and could have done SO MUCH MORE by now. The only way I'd vote against him is FOR somebody better (on our side, as Trump still seems to be, but a better executive).

    I've had this discussion with the old Jack Hanson, and I don't want to have to repeat the arguments back and forth.

    BTW, I like the rest of your comment, Res, and this whole thread is good to read. The only one on here who is NOT against hate speech laws may be our host Steve Sailer, from what I've read. AndrewR (not picking you out, but I was about to reply) above and the rest need to understand how wise the Founding Fathers of our nation were. However, if you get really into that stuff, the alt-right guys keep bringing up that "muh Constitution" insult. Possibly they mean "it's not gonna help you now", and on that, I kinda agree.

    Replies: @Jack Henson, @res

    What “Never Trump shills”?

    I think this is the most notable (I believe he changed handles):
    https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=boethius
    https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=boethiuss

  120. @Jack D

    Remember when the essence of liberalism was that the 14th Amendment meant that the 1st Amendment applied to state governments
     
    Remember when a major Leftist movement was called the "Free Speech Movement"? Remember when the Left used to argue in favor of free speech even for people who were literally Nazis? That was the Old American Left that hadn't yet fully embraced Who-whom. The Woke Left is all about who-whom. Where you sit with them depends on where you stand. Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN'T apply, so it's OK to deplatform deplorables as long as the Federal government isn't the one doing it.

    I've been waiting for the Left to realize that the incorporation doctrine was a two edged sword but I always thought that the first attack would be against the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. But the Left nowadays hates free speech even more than they hate guns.

    I think the turning point was Trump's election - they always thought that if they had the megaphone then they could bring the voters along with them. Walter Cronkite would say something negative about Vietnam and the country would follow. But Trump's election made them realize that they couldn't be sure of that anymore. The man could "Twitter" (whatever the hell that is) directly to the voters and wise men like Walter and Richard wouldn't be there to explain to us What it All Means and Why Trump is Wrong. This is driving them mad with frustration. The other day I was flipping cable channels and I saw Walter's successor, Dan Rather, doing interviews with over the hill rock stars. It was one step above selling reverse mortgages on infomercials. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work), @International Jew

    Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN’T apply

    Yup. And I think the purest expression of their attitude is how they like to say, “Freedom of speech doesn’t imply freedom from the consequences of your speech.” Sheesh, how committed can someone who believes that really be to free speech?

  121. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    Remember when a major Leftist movement was called the “Free Speech Movement”? Remember when the Left used to argue in favor of free speech even for people who were literally Nazis? That was the Old American Left that hadn’t yet fully embraced Who-whom. The Woke Left is all about who-whom. Where you sit with them depends on where you stand. Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN’T apply, so it’s OK to deplatform deplorables as long as the Federal government isn’t the one doing it.
     
    Jack I think your view here is that of a Pollyanna.

    There was a "Free Speech Movement" from the Left when the Left lacked institutional power. The Left now possesses enormous institutional power, so it does not need a concept of "Free Speech" because Leftists can say whatever they want whenever they want however they want without fear of reprisal. It is the fact that there is still some relatively narrow space behind which non-Leftists can hide from them that they cannot abide.

    Another hobbyhorse from the 1990s was "tolerance." Now that they have institutional power to enforce their vision, you don't really hear about the virtues of "tolerance" anymore. The online Leftist will now post a lame meme explaining "Popper's Paradox of Tolerance" to explain why it's acceptable to suppress the freedoms of non-Leftists.

    https://wy3mg1xgify37n21x223cw7xl1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HcuZIT5w8xJLMXoISDexG1GNz5Dj7xHO_QGeueMtdPU.jpg

    "You see, 'tolerance' was always a faulty concept and I'm sorry we didn't see that right up until the moment that we captured the institutional power to force our will upon the 'intolerant.' Why no, I'm not myself being 'intolerant' by suppressing your rights and freedoms, what a silly statement!"

    The only useful rubric for interpreting these people and their pretexts is:

    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
     

    Replies: @International Jew, @dfordoom

    Intolerance of intolerance is itself a form of intolerance.

    Or maybe leftists think intolerance is like the number -1 raised to even and odd powers!
    But of course that’s the wrong model. Intolerance is like F in logic, and the operation is the logical AND.

  122. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)
    @Jack D


    Remember when a major Leftist movement was called the “Free Speech Movement”? Remember when the Left used to argue in favor of free speech even for people who were literally Nazis? That was the Old American Left that hadn’t yet fully embraced Who-whom. The Woke Left is all about who-whom. Where you sit with them depends on where you stand. Leftists nowadays love to tell us about all the instances where the 1st Amendment DOESN’T apply, so it’s OK to deplatform deplorables as long as the Federal government isn’t the one doing it.
     
    Jack I think your view here is that of a Pollyanna.

    There was a "Free Speech Movement" from the Left when the Left lacked institutional power. The Left now possesses enormous institutional power, so it does not need a concept of "Free Speech" because Leftists can say whatever they want whenever they want however they want without fear of reprisal. It is the fact that there is still some relatively narrow space behind which non-Leftists can hide from them that they cannot abide.

    Another hobbyhorse from the 1990s was "tolerance." Now that they have institutional power to enforce their vision, you don't really hear about the virtues of "tolerance" anymore. The online Leftist will now post a lame meme explaining "Popper's Paradox of Tolerance" to explain why it's acceptable to suppress the freedoms of non-Leftists.

    https://wy3mg1xgify37n21x223cw7xl1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HcuZIT5w8xJLMXoISDexG1GNz5Dj7xHO_QGeueMtdPU.jpg

    "You see, 'tolerance' was always a faulty concept and I'm sorry we didn't see that right up until the moment that we captured the institutional power to force our will upon the 'intolerant.' Why no, I'm not myself being 'intolerant' by suppressing your rights and freedoms, what a silly statement!"

    The only useful rubric for interpreting these people and their pretexts is:

    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
     

    Replies: @International Jew, @dfordoom

    There was a “Free Speech Movement” from the Left when the Left lacked institutional power. The Left now possesses enormous institutional power, so it does not need a concept of “Free Speech” because Leftists can say whatever they want whenever they want however they want without fear of reprisal.

    It’s also worth pointing out that back in the 1950s and 1960s conservatives were not overly fond of free speech. Most conservatives applauded HUAC’s efforts to silence communists in Hollywood. Most conservatives liked censorship.

    Then suddenly in the 21st century conservatives decided that they cared passionately about free speech.

    So both sides are in practice equally cynical.

  123. @Moses
    @AndrewR


    “Whites are about 8% of the world population”

    Way to pull random numbers out of your ass
     

    Where else would I pull it from? By all means supply your own ass number. (Oh, you didn’t.)

    Yucks aside, it’s irrelevant if the current White % of world population is 5%, 8%, 10% or 18%.

    The fact is Whites are a minority.

    We are becoming more a minority every day, both in the world and in our home countries.

    An iSteve commenter once wrote “We’re all Jews now. Time to act like it.”

    Indeed.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Every “race” is a “minority” globally, as it’s been for tens of thousands of years.

  124. @notsaying
    @Unladen Swallow

    One of the things we take for granted is the ability to say just about whatever we want here in America.

    I don't think many Americans really want to give up that right.

    What I don't know is how many Americans want other Americans to stop saying things they disagree with so much that they would be willing to adopt hate speech laws to force them to shut up, at least in public.

    People don't realize how important it is to know what your fellow Americans are thinking. Forcing critical speech to go private means that when things are changing, if the country was coming under the influence of a dangerous ideology that we wouldn't know it because of hate speech laws. It is the strongest societies that allow free speech because they're willing to accept the annoyance of listening and reading hateful and obnoxious things in exchange for all the positives of free speech.

    Richard Stengel is dead wrong here. I am sorry he was ever part of our diplomatic corp. That Arab diplomats and burning the Koran helped to convince him that hate speech laws are a good thing is scary.

    But notice how so many of the the people who have limited rights in their home countries want to come to the US to live and work. I see no reason to change what we have been doing. What we need is far more of our elites to come out in support of free speech, not fewer.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @dfordoom

    But notice how so many of the the people who have limited rights in their home countries want to come to the US to live and work.

    Thy don’t head for the US for the freedom. They head for the US for the money. They don’t give about the freedoms.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @dfordoom

    They love the money, that's for sure. But I think they quickly get accustomed to the generally improved way of life here. Free speech is part of that. Even people who don't like the fact that people here can say things that people couldn't in their home countries, they benefit from this. That's one of the reasons I get so mad when people from other countries do things like genital mutilation to their daughters. We allowed them to come here, they take advantage of what we offer and then they do things that we completely disagree with and are sometimes even illegal. I am all for throwing the book at immigrants like that.

    I get very sick of being used. I'm more disgusted at the employers who want the cheap labor though and do all they can to get it. They're the biggest criminals of all and I want them in jail.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  125. @kaganovitch
    @Jack D

    Leftists can never see past the short term. Orange Man is in the White House so we need special laws that will get rid of Orange Man. This will backfire on us and these same laws will get used against us at a later date? We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. The main thing is that we get rid of Orange Man now, by any and all means.

    I think it's the eschatological nature of Leftism- the right side of History, the Ineluctable March of Progress, etc. etc. that skews their thinking this way. After all, if your permanent victory is all but assured, why be concerned about when you will not be holding the whip hand? When the future is your elegantly shod foot stamping on the deplorables faces forever , why worry?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @nebulafox

    if your permanent victory is all but assured

    I believe this is why the election of Trump drove them so crazy. Though their eventual permanent victory is a done deal thanks to demographics, to them it is like a violation of the natural order that they could have a setback of four or even eight years. Also, having to deal with the realization of how many of their fellow citizens hate what they’re doing.

  126. @ATBOTL
    @Arclight

    If the past is any indication, conservative Republicans will support laws against "hate speech" in a few years. Now that the establishment is pushing this openly, we will probably see some version of an article like "The Conservative Case For Thought Crime Laws" in National Review.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    I don’t think anyone will top this one from a month ago:

    • Comment by “Hail” at September 29, 2019 5:07 AM
    “The conservative case for a permanent, left-wing supermajority.”

  127. @Rohirrimborn
    @tanabear


    I challenge anyone to name one false belief that Americans had due to a Russian disinformation campaign?
     
    Going back to soviet days the belief that Sacco and Vanzetti were framed.

    Replies: @Alden, @anon

    And that the Rosenbergs were innocent.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @anon

    TBH, I don't think that Ethel actually committed any capital offense. Even the prosecutors didn't think so. The idea was to put pressure on Julius to name names in exchange for sparing Ethel's life. But they both turned out to be loyal Party members and wouldn't talk so it didn't go the way it was supposed too. Oops. Also what Fuchs (a German Protestant BTW) did was much worse but he only served 9 years. Fuchs, unlike Rosenberg, was in the inner circle of the Manhattan Project and in a position to give away real secrets.

    The Soviets were also hindered by their own paranoia. They knew that they were the masters of the double agent and of disinformation and they assumed that the Western services were the same, so they never fully trusted any information that they received from their spies (nor did they trust their own scientists either). Beria didn't actually give the fruits of his espionage to the Soviet nuclear scientists - rather he made them do their own research and used the Western data as a double check. So it's not clear that this really sped up the Russian bomb, though it did give them assurance that they were on the right track.

    That being said, Stalin sent millions of innocents to their death including countless thousands falsely accused of being Western spies, so if the US only killed one innocent in the Cold War then we did good by comparison.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @nebulafox

  128. @Jack D
    @awry

    Vogelfrei? Did someone say Vogelfrei?

    https://youtu.be/QxIWDmmqZzY

    Scenes from the old white California - a world that no longer exists. Might as well be Pompeii. And look at that Nazi flag behind the stage. Well I never.

    Replies: @Alden, @BB753

    Demographics is everything. People just don’t realize how much a country can change in slightly less than two generations.
    Though even today, you won’t see many black or brown faces at a rock concert.

  129. @Redneck farmer
    It's safe to say Richard Stengel's family wasn't in America when the 1st or 14th Amendments were written and ratified.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jane Plain

    His mother’s maiden name was ‘Anderson’, so quite possibly when the 14th was ratified.

  130. @dfordoom
    @notsaying


    But notice how so many of the the people who have limited rights in their home countries want to come to the US to live and work.
     
    Thy don't head for the US for the freedom. They head for the US for the money. They don't give about the freedoms.

    Replies: @notsaying

    They love the money, that’s for sure. But I think they quickly get accustomed to the generally improved way of life here. Free speech is part of that. Even people who don’t like the fact that people here can say things that people couldn’t in their home countries, they benefit from this. That’s one of the reasons I get so mad when people from other countries do things like genital mutilation to their daughters. We allowed them to come here, they take advantage of what we offer and then they do things that we completely disagree with and are sometimes even illegal. I am all for throwing the book at immigrants like that.

    I get very sick of being used. I’m more disgusted at the employers who want the cheap labor though and do all they can to get it. They’re the biggest criminals of all and I want them in jail.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @notsaying


    I get very sick of being used. I’m more disgusted at the employers who want the cheap labor though and do all they can to get it. They’re the biggest criminals of all and I want them in jail.
     
    That's what immigration is all about. Cheap labour. It's nothing to do with "white genocide" - mass immigration was and still is a way to keep the poor as poor as possible - because that's good for the economy.

    The motivation behind the push for mass immigration is pure greed. Not just greed on the part of mega-corporations but even more it's greed on the part of small and medium businesses.
  131. @Mr. Anon

    Richard Stengel

    Chairperson and CEO of the National Constitution Center
    In office
    March 1, 2004 – June 1, 2006

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stengel
     
    Stengel is an expert on The Constitution. In much the same way that a butcher is an expert on cows.

    It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn’t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society.
     
    He's assuming he is one of the "good guys". He doesn't sound like on to me.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    His career, like that of Jay Carney, is a testament to the degree to which major media and the Democratic Party are part of the same social nexus. I think it may have been RM Kaus had an inventory a while back of the number of major media figures married to Obama Administration officials or 1st degree relatives of Obama Administration officials. IIRC, there were a couple dozen.

  132. I’m pretty sure it was Richard Stengel who put Bruce Crumley in charge of Time‘s Paris bureau. Remember Bruce Crumley?

    https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/charlie-hebdo-bomb-bruce-crumley-james-kirchick/

  133. @anon
    @Rohirrimborn

    And that the Rosenbergs were innocent.

    Replies: @Jack D

    TBH, I don’t think that Ethel actually committed any capital offense. Even the prosecutors didn’t think so. The idea was to put pressure on Julius to name names in exchange for sparing Ethel’s life. But they both turned out to be loyal Party members and wouldn’t talk so it didn’t go the way it was supposed too. Oops. Also what Fuchs (a German Protestant BTW) did was much worse but he only served 9 years. Fuchs, unlike Rosenberg, was in the inner circle of the Manhattan Project and in a position to give away real secrets.

    The Soviets were also hindered by their own paranoia. They knew that they were the masters of the double agent and of disinformation and they assumed that the Western services were the same, so they never fully trusted any information that they received from their spies (nor did they trust their own scientists either). Beria didn’t actually give the fruits of his espionage to the Soviet nuclear scientists – rather he made them do their own research and used the Western data as a double check. So it’s not clear that this really sped up the Russian bomb, though it did give them assurance that they were on the right track.

    That being said, Stalin sent millions of innocents to their death including countless thousands falsely accused of being Western spies, so if the US only killed one innocent in the Cold War then we did good by comparison.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    She was an accomplice, not an innocent. The double death penalty was issued by Judge Irving Kaufman, who had had irregular ex parte communications with the prosecution. Eisenhower refused to commute her sentence because he'd been led to believe by the FBI that Ethel had been calling the shots.

    Julius Rosenberg's work was primarily in the realm of transmitting radar technology to the Soviets, which knowledge he'd picked up on the job. (His handler spoke to the WaPo in 1996 and said Rosenberg was careful to avoid involving his wife in this espionage. The testimony against her in re producing typescripts was provided by her brother).

    Critics of Emmanuel Bloch maintain he was working for the Communist Party's interests, not his clients' interests, and having them pay the extreme price was party policy.

    , @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    No. Ethel Rosenberg was an active and willing accomplice to her husband's treason, not a bystander: all accounts indicate that she was as ideologically loyal to Moscow as Julius was. Executing her along with her husband was probably a product of the hothouse atmosphere of the early 1950s, but the conviction itself is not debatable.

    Given that millions of innocent people in Korea would pay a heavy price not least because the Russians got an atomic bomb ahead of schedule, my only regret is that Fuchs, Hall, and the rest weren't fried: or better yet, left to swing on the gallows pole.

  134. @Redneck farmer
    It's safe to say Richard Stengel's family wasn't in America when the 1st or 14th Amendments were written and ratified.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jane Plain

    Casey Stengel was Jewish?

  135. Yes, let’s enact hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

    Then people will be imprisoned for using the term “white privilege”.

  136. @Jack D
    @anon

    TBH, I don't think that Ethel actually committed any capital offense. Even the prosecutors didn't think so. The idea was to put pressure on Julius to name names in exchange for sparing Ethel's life. But they both turned out to be loyal Party members and wouldn't talk so it didn't go the way it was supposed too. Oops. Also what Fuchs (a German Protestant BTW) did was much worse but he only served 9 years. Fuchs, unlike Rosenberg, was in the inner circle of the Manhattan Project and in a position to give away real secrets.

    The Soviets were also hindered by their own paranoia. They knew that they were the masters of the double agent and of disinformation and they assumed that the Western services were the same, so they never fully trusted any information that they received from their spies (nor did they trust their own scientists either). Beria didn't actually give the fruits of his espionage to the Soviet nuclear scientists - rather he made them do their own research and used the Western data as a double check. So it's not clear that this really sped up the Russian bomb, though it did give them assurance that they were on the right track.

    That being said, Stalin sent millions of innocents to their death including countless thousands falsely accused of being Western spies, so if the US only killed one innocent in the Cold War then we did good by comparison.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @nebulafox

    She was an accomplice, not an innocent. The double death penalty was issued by Judge Irving Kaufman, who had had irregular ex parte communications with the prosecution. Eisenhower refused to commute her sentence because he’d been led to believe by the FBI that Ethel had been calling the shots.

    Julius Rosenberg’s work was primarily in the realm of transmitting radar technology to the Soviets, which knowledge he’d picked up on the job. (His handler spoke to the WaPo in 1996 and said Rosenberg was careful to avoid involving his wife in this espionage. The testimony against her in re producing typescripts was provided by her brother).

    Critics of Emmanuel Bloch maintain he was working for the Communist Party’s interests, not his clients’ interests, and having them pay the extreme price was party policy.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  137. @Jack D
    @anon

    TBH, I don't think that Ethel actually committed any capital offense. Even the prosecutors didn't think so. The idea was to put pressure on Julius to name names in exchange for sparing Ethel's life. But they both turned out to be loyal Party members and wouldn't talk so it didn't go the way it was supposed too. Oops. Also what Fuchs (a German Protestant BTW) did was much worse but he only served 9 years. Fuchs, unlike Rosenberg, was in the inner circle of the Manhattan Project and in a position to give away real secrets.

    The Soviets were also hindered by their own paranoia. They knew that they were the masters of the double agent and of disinformation and they assumed that the Western services were the same, so they never fully trusted any information that they received from their spies (nor did they trust their own scientists either). Beria didn't actually give the fruits of his espionage to the Soviet nuclear scientists - rather he made them do their own research and used the Western data as a double check. So it's not clear that this really sped up the Russian bomb, though it did give them assurance that they were on the right track.

    That being said, Stalin sent millions of innocents to their death including countless thousands falsely accused of being Western spies, so if the US only killed one innocent in the Cold War then we did good by comparison.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @nebulafox

    No. Ethel Rosenberg was an active and willing accomplice to her husband’s treason, not a bystander: all accounts indicate that she was as ideologically loyal to Moscow as Julius was. Executing her along with her husband was probably a product of the hothouse atmosphere of the early 1950s, but the conviction itself is not debatable.

    Given that millions of innocent people in Korea would pay a heavy price not least because the Russians got an atomic bomb ahead of schedule, my only regret is that Fuchs, Hall, and the rest weren’t fried: or better yet, left to swing on the gallows pole.

  138. @kaganovitch
    @Jack D

    Leftists can never see past the short term. Orange Man is in the White House so we need special laws that will get rid of Orange Man. This will backfire on us and these same laws will get used against us at a later date? We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. The main thing is that we get rid of Orange Man now, by any and all means.

    I think it's the eschatological nature of Leftism- the right side of History, the Ineluctable March of Progress, etc. etc. that skews their thinking this way. After all, if your permanent victory is all but assured, why be concerned about when you will not be holding the whip hand? When the future is your elegantly shod foot stamping on the deplorables faces forever , why worry?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @nebulafox

    There’s two stubborn strains in the American psyche: the idea that human nature is perfectable and the purpose of the United States is to created God’s community on Earth (Puritanism) and the desire to run free with minimal external authority, with a visceral reaction against anyone who isn’t kin or something similarly respected telling you what to do (Scots-Irish).

    Is it any wonder that these desires are constantly at loggerheads?

    >After all, if your permanent victory is all but assured, why be concerned about when you will not be holding the whip hand?

    It’s also why they react to rejection-or worse, open mockery-so negatively. People aren’t disagreeing with them in their view, they are rebelling against the inevitable righteous order of things, which conveniently places them, The Elect, in the role of Guiders.

    • Agree: kaganovitch
  139. @notsaying
    @dfordoom

    They love the money, that's for sure. But I think they quickly get accustomed to the generally improved way of life here. Free speech is part of that. Even people who don't like the fact that people here can say things that people couldn't in their home countries, they benefit from this. That's one of the reasons I get so mad when people from other countries do things like genital mutilation to their daughters. We allowed them to come here, they take advantage of what we offer and then they do things that we completely disagree with and are sometimes even illegal. I am all for throwing the book at immigrants like that.

    I get very sick of being used. I'm more disgusted at the employers who want the cheap labor though and do all they can to get it. They're the biggest criminals of all and I want them in jail.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I get very sick of being used. I’m more disgusted at the employers who want the cheap labor though and do all they can to get it. They’re the biggest criminals of all and I want them in jail.

    That’s what immigration is all about. Cheap labour. It’s nothing to do with “white genocide” – mass immigration was and still is a way to keep the poor as poor as possible – because that’s good for the economy.

    The motivation behind the push for mass immigration is pure greed. Not just greed on the part of mega-corporations but even more it’s greed on the part of small and medium businesses.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS