HATE SPEECH & MSU

Hate speech. What an elusive concept. What makes something hate speech? Well, according to most speech police, it would include any and all speech (or actions) that incite, or could potentially incite, violence. It is speech that is, or could possibly be, harmful to the psyche of another. It is, to many, what is referred to as revisionist history, although this is highly qualified in the favor of the speech police. It is speech that is believed to be prejudicial or bigoted; the latter being another very elusive concept. While these qualities and characteristics are the most common among what is referred to as hate speech, this by no means satisfies the entirety. But at least this gives us a framework wherein the discussion can be understood.

The problem here, in my estimation, is not so much the idea of hate speech - or even censorship for that matter - but the standard used to determine what is hate speech. Even more important is the matter of who is the standard bearer. As recent history has played out, the standard tends to be secular pluralism, and the standard bearers tend to be a cabal of academic leftists.

This should raise flags for those on the other side of the ideological spectrum. Their views are in the cross-hairs here, and theirs alone. They will be labeled by the establishment as intolerant, bigoted, xenophobic, fascist, and even historical revisionists. Their ideas, values, and heroes will be maligned. They will be forced, not by persuasion, but by fear, into keeping their opinions to themselves. They will be told to keep their mouths shut, with penalties for any brave soul who violates their newly founded code.

The irony here is in the tenets within the standard. Most of the speech police work off of presuppositions that include moral relativism, epistemological subjectivism, diversity and tolerance. But their actions speak much louder than their words. Moral relativism wouldn't provide any basis by which to distinguish between hate and love. Epistemological subjectivism wouldn't grant them any intellectual rationale for judging one idea to be more repugnant than another. Diversity would require them to embrace and celebrate the fact that there are people who hold different political, ethical, and cultural ideas than they do. And tolerance would force them to bite the bullet, regardless of how ideologically distasteful they may think these hate-mongers to be. On each and every front, the speech police fall upon their own standard as Saul fell upon his own sword.

So how will this play out? In my estimation, the speech police will win. Not because their ideas are right, not because their standard holds up, but because they hold the trump card; they are in power. The entire affair is rather unfortunate, but it is all too typical.

R.I.P. First Amendment...

FREEDOM TO CENSOR

We discussed censorship in seminar this morning. The question was:

Is there any instance where censorship is a good thing?

Most students immediately said no, but then - predictably - gave various exceptions. Some of these included child pornography, others included porn that involved animals. Beyond this, most thought it was entirely up to the individual. So long as it doesn't infringe on the right of another individual, all was well.

I humbly disagree. I think that while the federal government should probably stay out of censorship, there should be a degree by which a school, community, or even state should maintain the right to defend themselves from things that they believe would be harmful to the commonwealth. If a school doesn't want to permit Darwinism to be taught or My Two Mommies to be read, that is the right of the school. If a community doesn't wish to have pornography in their stores or gay bars on Main Street, they should be permitted to prohibit these things. If a state wishes to retain a specific moral climate, it is their Constitutional right to do so. In each of these cases it begins and ends with families, communities, cultures, and values.

While this may seem radical to the modern mind, our Founding Fathers understood this very well. The very same people who wrote free speech into the first amendment also wrote blasphemy laws and codes pertaining to public vulgarity. They knew that while people should be free to make decision, communities also had the right to do so. They didn't view America as "we the individuals" as much as "we the people," and this was reflected in the way they enacted various laws.

We now live in a day and age where Jerry Springer, MTV, and mild-porn run rampant across a civilization that, in days past, would be repulsed by what they see and hear. They most certainly wouldn't have celebrated it as stellar examples of freedom of speech as they meant it to be. On the contrary, they would shake their heads in disgust. So should we.

Families, school, communities, and states should begin taking advantage of their constitutional right to censor what they believe to be harmful to their children, their students, and their citizens. If America wishes be a shining city on a hill, then we may wish to rid ourselves of porn shops, filth on airwaves, and smut in our schools. Until then, we may be shining on a hill, but a city shining with moral depravity.

STUDENT CULTURE WARRIORS

Paleo Radio can be heard every Monday and Friday night from 7-10pm EST by going to www.wocrfm.com. The site is only compatible with Internet Explorer.