There are many legitimate criticism of the current “freedom of speech” laws in the US. However, as the Catholic Church has always noted, one does also not want to bring about massive, quick changes to law, because laws exist for a reason, and change should be natural, not forced. While the American concept of free speech is generally antithetical to Church teaching as well as the majority of religions, it is not something that should change instantly, but should take time for the good will of all.
In the US, there is a pattern of making sharp changes and causing radical breaks in society because of this. While this has been for many reasons, one of the biggest reasons as of late is the concept of what is “hate speech”. Originally pushed very hard by many groups, especially by lawyers and lobbyists representing the interests of wealthy and socialist American Jews, the concept of “hate speech” has been used to create protected classes of speech not for the true objective benefit of others, but in order to impose immorality and ban morality with legal force.
There have been many areas in which this has been used and groups for which this has been applied to in the public sphere, but one of the most successful ones has been the sodomites, for within three decades the nation has been absolutely transformed under the clear mantra of submission to sodom or else suffer a white martyrdom by being economically and socially isolated to the point of starvation and permanent sociopolitical disenfranchisement.
The concept of “hate speech” has worked well to further the advance of socialism. According to a recent poll, most Americans- and over 60% of Millennials -now want the First Amendment to be changed to exclude “hate speech”.
New Campaign For Free Speech polling results demonstrate just how vulnerable free speech protections are in the United States.
CFS polling results show:
51% of Americans think the First Amendment is outdated and should be rewritten. The First Amendment protects your right to free speech, free assembly, and freedom of religion, among other things.
48% believe “hate speech” should be illegal. (“Hate speech” is not defined—we left it up to the individual participant.) Of those, 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. (source)
In previous articles that you can find in the Shoebat archives, I have criticized the “age of consent” laws in so far as they are arbitrary standards based on nothing more than a random agreement between warring political parties, but I have supported them and still support them at the current time for the reason of principle in light of the rise of the sodomites, as they want to change the current laws because their entire movement is based on the legitimization of sexual abuse of smaller and smaller children.
Standards are erected because of social agreements to govern people at all times but especially in turbulent ones. A man does not change the rules of society when there is a conflict just as a man is not allowed to change the rules of a sports competition while it is in progress because it would give one party an unjust advantage over the other when the purpose of the rules is to act as a standard in cases of seeking a just answer amid controversy.
The current “controversy” over “hate speech” laws is just the same at the above issue in so far as the move to support changing the “rules” of freedom of speech in the US- as just or as unjust as the concept may have been originally created in -is not about making the nation better, but attempting a socialist variant of controls on what people think and believe.
There does not need to be fewer or additional laws about “free speech” or “hate speech”- all that one needs is the current system because it works very well even in spite of serious attempts by revolutionaries on both ends of the political spectrum to distort, abuse, and break the system for their benefit just so that they can replace the old system with a “new” system that is not new at all in philosophy, but of the same dictatorships of the old world that is only made “better” because they claim that it is their “idea” and it has their label on it a opposed to that of another.
I have warned that the American Constitution is dying because the people themselves either no longer exist nor believe in it. Governments are made of people, and laws are written and enforced for the benefit of said people, and if that people changes significantly or ceases to be, the laws will change. The existence of the Internet is very interesting because human knowledge has largely been concentrated into a few major websites that are interlinked with each other. It would not take much for a large amount of that knowledge to be locked away or disappear permanently.
The burning of the Library of Alexandria in 48 BC and the destruction of the Grand Library of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 are considered major losses of books and wisdom in history. However, the destruction of knowledge- true and good knowledge -does not always need to come by fires, but today from the click of a button, for as many people do not know how to use a library with paper books, eliminating or limiting electronic access would cause a lot of damage to current research and the propagation of knowledge.
“Hate” is often times a subjective term. In the Bible, God makes it clear there are many things that He hates, but this does not make Him bad, for in order to love, one must also be able to hate. The idea of stopping “hate” is itself very hatred because it supposes, without saying it, a cessation of love in favor of blind submission to an authority of persons, groups, or machines who likely hate you but will not say such.
Comments are closed.