I’ve been thinking a good bit about “hate speech” lately and it occurs to me that the term “hate speech” really is just a political buzzword. It is mostly a tool of the thought police. There is hateFUL speech, but there is no “hate speech.” The people who seem to use the term all the time seem to want to imply that because there is “hate” in someone’s speech, that somehow that speech then isn’t also protected by the 1st Amendment. That is incorrect.
“Hate speech” is not some special category of speech that isn’t protected under the Constitution. (This incident was in Britain.) All speech – with very very few exceptions – is protected speech. Shoot, we get a solid dose of hateFUL speech every single day at this website. But we’re not sicking the cops on the folks who run their mouths in a hateful manner.
We are supposed to be a free society and people who subscribe to the idea of “hate speech” fundamentally are afraid of a free society. It’s not about “being polite.” It’s about power and control.
Prosecutors in Liverpool decided they were unable to charge anybody in the death of Frankie Murphy when the 13-year-old boy was struck and killed by a car while riding his bike back in 2016.
But prosecutors did charge and convict a young woman who posted rap lyrics on Instagram in Murphy’s memory, because they included the n-word.
Chelsea Russell, 19, posted lyrics to a song by the Detroit rapper Snap Dogg (no, not Snoop Dogg) on the bio of her Instagram account to pay tribute to Murphy. The song, “I’m Trippin’,” released in 2016, is heavy on killing snitches and waving guns around and it has lots of use of the n-word. It’s the type of song that people point to when they say they don’t like rap music because it’s too violent…
…”There is no place in civil society for language like that. Everyone with an Instagram account could view this content. The lyrics also encourage killing and robbing, so are grossly offensive.”
Russell now has to submit to ankle monitoring for eight weeks and pay the equivalent of about $800 in fines.
Again, it’s the busybodies on the march. There is just no place for such “grossly offensive” speech.
The people who take offense (in a legal sense) to “grossly offensive” speech are absolutely the ones who SHOULD NOT be defining what is “offensive” for the rest of us. We don’t need the equivalent of a bunch of 3rd grade teachers determining what words are OK to say and which are not.