Political Censorship Now Widespread

Posted on January 7, 2007

The idea that saying negative things about certain selected groups of people is “hate speech”, and is so very bad that it is not entitled to free speech protections, now seems to be widespread. In the USA, the First Amendment limits what governments can do to restrict so-called “hate speech” but the government is in fact a small player in the mass communications market. Note the report below for instance:

Google insisted it already had complied with court requests to identify individuals accused of using Orkut to spread child pornography and engage in hate speech against blacks, Jews and homosexuals

Not only is “hate speech” forbidden but people who engage in it can be tracked down and legally pursued in various ways. The day would seem to be not far off when saying negative things about Leftist politicians is declared “hate speech” — with a Left-leaning mass media gleefully enforcing suppression of such speech.

Never have blogs been more needed. That Google also owns the biggest blogging service — blogspot — is therefore a source of some concern for the future. Since I use blogspot, I once again encourage people to bookmark my list of mirror sites.

I have just put up on PC Watch an extended argument about why “hate” speech should not be censored.

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)

» Filed Under ACLU

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “Political Censorship Now Widespread”

Nazareth on January 7th, 2007 2:06 pm

Jon- I guess I’m confused here- Certain things are illegal to say? How does the KKK get away with their messages of hate, and how does radical islamics get away with their blatant racist hate speech in public? Some of the vilest things are said by protesters as they stand around funerals for soldiers and shout their racist hate speech toward the grieving families, yet they are protected by the law to do so. I don’t know- I think there should be some form of control- but then if you make some kind of rule that bars people from causing pain in others, then those people will abuse the system claiming they were ’caused pain’ never ending frivilous lawsuits would ensue. This is a hard topic to decide on- Some countries have made incitement rhetoric like the president of Iran says illegal- and in fact countries like Argentina have called for prosecution of Mahmoud amidinejad (sp?) claiming he broke the law.