What is hate speech? According to Answers.com, it is "Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. The article points out that the United States is unique among the judicial systems of the world in extending broad protection to such speech. Evidently, university speech codes were developed with the 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in mind.
Chaplinsky established the "fighting words" exception to determine whether the offending speech is protected or not. The court opined that, "...as those [words] that neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any social value in the search for truth and that incited an immediate, violent response. Sounds a lot like the old "no redeeming social value" test found in obscenity cases. And like obscenity, fighting words are in the eye of the beholder.
Hate speech as defined by the Liberal-Fascists is a different animal. It is a tool by which they supress any opposition to their agenda. Hate speech, therefore, is any criticism of Obama's agenda by equating the agenda with Obama himself. Perhaps the master stroke by the Democrats was in nominating Obama instead of Hillary Clinton for the presidency. Yet somehow, the press handling of Obama with kid gloves smacks of racism, i.e., the soft bigotry of low expectations. Chris Matthews epitomizes this institutionalized media bigotry. Watch this little exchange between Matthews and his fellow Leftist media stooges, Keith "Mr. Depends" Olbermann and Rachael "Mad Dog" Maddow.
Gee, Chrissy, did you forget that Obama is half white? No, I wouldn't have expected anything less stupid from a half-wit like you. This patronizing attitude by white Liberal-Fascists fits the definition of hate speech because it's reflective of a deep seated bigotry. These are the most dangerous bigots because they are political sociopaths dressed in sheep's clothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment