When Is Free Speech Hate Speech?

I do not believe that the poll below is true stating a majority of Americans want the 1st Amendment’s abridging the freedom of speech right to be rewritten. I believe that all of the five rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment are under attack. The attack on freedom of speech is the key to silencing any opposition to the other side’s ideology to enable their success.

I believe a majority of Americans understand their true purpose is the usurpation of the government and our Liberty. So how do we overcome this tactic of not being able to effectively argue our points? Debate.

Talking to the other side is not that hard unless you meet a true believer and they are easy to recognize once a debate starts. The people who understand that something is wrong but do not know how to proceed is common on both sides. Debating anyone starts with letting them speak first. If you listen to their concerns, you can address them with facts and your concerns. My experience has been that we have more in common than their puppet masters would allow them believe. And that is the reason that they want to limit our freedom of speech: they cannot let us debate the issues with reason and facts.

Ironically, history has shown that these same people are the first ones who are disposable once power is seized. The do not understand the term “useful idiot” or their future because they themselves have had their “speech” restricted. This restriction starts in our educational [indoctrination] system and continues with the media’s propaganda. In one respect, we all share the blame of this indoctrination leading to propaganda. Once our arguments are labelled “hate speech”, we have no ability to debate. No ability to debate means a hot civil war and I also believe that is what the puppet masters want.

I know that it is hard but if you truly believe in the precepts of freedom as outlined by our founding fathers, listen to the other side and then open a dialogue. As stated earlier, the true believers will not listen to you or even let you speak. Americans who want a future will listen. Be prepared for some backlash: you are tearing down their beliefs built over decades.

Do I believe we have the necessary time to bring reason back into the discussion? I hope that there will always be time for reason. However, desperate times make desperate people. Desperate people do not act with reason. And this is the path to civil war that is being promoted by both sides. And that is when free speech becomes hate speech: when it becomes the excuse to act without reason.

David DeGerolamo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Poll: Majority of Americans Want Increased Restrictions on Free Speech

shocking new poll from the Campaign For Free Speech (CFS) finds that majority of Americans want to see the First Amendment rewritten to increase restrictions on free speech.

According to the poll, 51 percent of Americans believe the First Amendment “is outdated and should be rewritten.” Can you wrap your head around that?

The poll also found that nearly half (48 percent) say “hate speech” should be illegal. Of those who say “hate speech” should be illegal, “about half think the punishment for ‘hate speech’ should include possible jail time, while the rest think it should just be a ticket and a fine.” What defines “hate speech,” you ask? There’s no definitive standard, but let me ask you, how many times have you said something that triggered a liberal and you were accused of “hate speech” in some fashion? My books are regularly accused of being racist by the left for being critical of Barack Obama. So, when people start talking about punishing “hate speech,” my first thought is “who gets to define what hate speech is?”

More…

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to When Is Free Speech Hate Speech?

  1. Hans says:

    David -- I appreciate your effort to minimize conflict … however …

    A “right” is nothing more than an autonomous action that you are willing to perform and defend. Your unobstructed action is legitimate so long as the action and its’ defense is also afforded by you to others.

    No individual or group of individuals (eg. a ‘majority’) has a legitimate authority to infringe on said autonomous actions so long as the the actions do not injure another person or damage their property.

    Should I be willing to listen to people who demand I submit to their whims (opinions or legislation malum prohibitum)? Perhaps, but I feel no compelling reason to do so.

    Engagement in such conversation is usually the starting point for a shift of the Overton Window to ‘normalize’ the position of those who wish to encroach and infringe on Rightful Liberty.

    • David says:

      You missed my point concerning listening. Listening to them first lowers their defenses and allows you to have a discussion. Candid discussions made without emotions allows both sides to make their points and then come to consensus or a course of action. Ted Cruz’s “discussion” with Alyssa Milano was a great example. If you do not give them the courtesy of listening, why should they do the same with you. Rightful liberty at that point becomes a hermit’s existence.

      I believe that we have rights from God and how we use them are a test to increase our faith and souls. A prudent man also is prepared for all contingencies including personal defense. Especially in the coming civil war.

      • Hans says:

        I did not “miss your point concerning listening”. I have listened and engaged in debate for longer than I care to recall.

        The outcome has always been the same: denial by the collectivists that the ‘individual rights’ we cherish should be allowed to exist in their ‘social justice’ society; denial by the right-statists that I should submit to the arbitrary edicts of their legislative domain.

        If I am able to live the remainder of my life uninfringed and unencroached as a hermit, I will consider that a victory.

        I have no desire to contribute further to the dialog and the plunder that supports either collectivism or the administrative state of the ‘right’.

      • a follower says:

        “I believe that we have rights from God and how we use them are a test to increase our faith and souls.”
        i believe the same. And we can discern true hate, true hate speech.
        We can discern lies, on both sides.
        We can practice ways of approach, plant seeds of Truth. Rebuke,Rebuff. i can safely say we can all learn in this. i believe we are to engage with each other in our daily lives Shouting at one another (or worse) in the streets, to be seen or recorded is not the preferred method.
        i believe we (the remnant)still have time to be led through this, as individuals.
        we are not alone and have not been left alone to fend for ourselves.

  2. NOG says:

    “I do not believe that the poll below is true ” Of course it is not true. My statistics professor used to say “Ask a mathematician, a scientist and a statistician ( ie pollster) what 2+2 is. Mathematician will say 4.0, a scientist will say 4 and the pollster will say “what do you want it to be?” As far as opening dialogue, no way that will work. Otherwise none of our current crop of political class would ever receive a single vote. You cannot over come the current education system short of a nuke, then start all over. Prep well.

  3. a follower says:

    David,
    i appreciate what you have said here and can agree.
    It seems people expect far to much. They do not understand the planting of seeds process of Truth. They do not have the will nor the patience. And so be it if you (they) need a break or decide it is time to be prudent. We are individuals and should behave as such, and allow others to behave as such.
    A very good point: ” you are tearing down their beliefs built over decades.”
    i am still discovering things we have been told or once believe that simply are not correct (to me.).
    “The whole world has been deceived.” So very True.

  4. Hans says:

    David, “a follower”, et al … I offer you this, and retire … my last contribution to this dialog.

    An excerpt from:
    The Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson, and the danger of ‘God-given rights’

    “Jefferson also seemed to recognize that God-given rights can be taken away by the men claiming to speak for god when he wrote that “the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god.”

    Rights are not bestowed, not by magistrates, kings, or even by gods. Rights are asserted. Once they are asserted they must be defended.”

    Complete essay:
    https://religionnews.com/2017/12/15/the-bill-of-rights-thomas-jefferson-and-the-danger-of-god-given-rights/

    • David says:

      You are correct that rights can be infringed or taken away by man. Whether they are defended prior to their infringement or after their removal is up to the individual man. Rights like honor must be earned and defended. Hopefully we will remember this after our period of bondage.

    • a follower says:

      Hans,
      Have noticed you are very quick to want to leave a disc. Would rather disc. and hear from you than from so many quick draw artist.
      i believe there is a difference between god and God. We serve one or another, the lesser does become or can become apparent. This is where the danger seems to be.
      Those who come in His name and are infarct evil, are to be exposed, not feared but exposed.
      Thanks for the link to essay, will have to read full context.

      • Hans says:

        Sir -- I mean no disrespect by my withdrawal

        I have been engaged in efforts to confront and defend against collectivism since the early 1970’s. I have been doing the same against statism since the early 2000’s; when I realized that the legislative domain was being used by both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ for the same evil -- to control the lives and property of men.

        I summarized my learning, and what I believe is the only meaningful solution to our chronic problem, in a talk I gave at David’s PATCON last October:

        https://ncrenegade.com/editorial/appalachian-network-patcon-hans-mentha/

        I offered one further insight in a more recent post where you and I exchanged some brief comments:

        https://ncrenegade.com/editorial/fatal-conceit/

        Neither effort was followed by ANY meaningful discussion of how to apply these concepts going forward to restore a culture of liberty.

        I’m approaching my 70th birthday and have become tired of diverting my limited energy away from my life and my family.

        I bid you well.

  5. Rabbi Will says:

    Those rights which are from YHVH are quite conditional! I’ve enjoyed all of you guys quips on this today. I wish there could be a real discussion maybe over dinner?

  6. Rabbi Will says:

    Where and when?

Leave a Reply