The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

“Studied” Censorship

Stealth
treason by usurping the Constitution. Stealth surrender to Iran. Stealth
indoctrination of children in schools. Stealth fascism. Stealth amnesty. Stealth
wealth distribution. Stealth health care.
Stealth
censorship. It’s all of a piece in the name of domestic tranquility. Its feasibility
must be “studied.” The nation must be made “safe” from
provocative words.  If that means
shutting up anyone who offends with his words, and preventing projected or
hypothetical or imaginary violence, so be it.
It
won’t be called “censorship.” It will be called the enforcement of
“responsible speech.” “Irresponsible” speech must be
codified into the criminal law and punished.
It
is uncommon knowledge – I say uncommon
because not everyone is anchored to reality – that when the government begins
to “study” a problem, it usually leads to legislation to control or
eradicate the problem. The government studied the meat-packing industry, and
wound up regulating it. The government studied farm prices, and decided they
needed to be “stabilized” with subsidies. The government studied
cars, and wound up regulating them. The government studied smoking, and wound
up regulating it. The government studied nutrition, and wound up regulating it.
The government has studied climate change, and wishes it could regulate it. The
government studied birds, bees, trees, and rocks, and wound up regulating or at
least protecting them.
I
can’t think of a thing or human action the government hasn’t studied and not
wound up regulating, protecting, or even prohibiting it.
The
problem of “hate speech” has been something the government has been
“studying” for a long time. Now thirteen Democrats are proposing that
it be “studied” even more, and have introduced a bill in the House
that would lead to the creation of a special committee charged with coming up
with the right solution. An a priori, or a foregone, politically
correct conclusion. One can’t decide if it’s part and parcel of a conspiracy,
or just the natural progress of statism with blinkered politicians at the wheel
steering us on a course over the cliff of no return.
The
modus operandi of American style
fascism is not to goose-step its way into your life in time with an umpapa band,
but to quietly sneak up on you in a pair of Nike Forging Iron basketball shoes
and, in this instance, slip a gag over your mouth. The irony is that you paid
for those shoes. The thirteen politicians are not the mouthpieces or poodles of
an Argentine junta you didn’t elect. And if you resist, you won’t be secreted
away in an Argentinean made Ford Falcon. You will be tossed ever so gently into
a General Motors-made SWAT-mobile. Or, if that’s a scenario that our Platonic
guardians want to avoid lest it scare Americans into open revolt, you’ll simply
be run ragged in court or sued until you cry uncle or poverty.
On
January 16th, Pete Kasperowicz reported on The Hill in his article,
13
House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech
“:
Thirteen House Democrats have
proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on
the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.
The bill, sponsored by Rep.
Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media
are used to “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of
crimes of hate.”
“Hate
speech,” of course, is any speech that any politician, advocacy group, or
speech-sensitive group or tribe deems it to be. It could be a scholarly book or
paper on Islam, or colloquial mockery of gays or bearded ladies, or chitchat about
Barack Obama’s lousy golf scores, or even images transmitted to or sent from one’s
mobile phone from an article published somewhere on the Internet.
Jeffries says the NTIA needs to
see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication
that have sprung up over the last two decades.

“The Internet is a wonderful vehicle for innovation, creativity and
entrepreneurship,” he said. “But it can also be used as a platform to
promote hate and target vulnerable individuals.

“This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and
hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First
Amendment protection.”
His legislation requires the NTIA
to update its report to examine how the Internet and mobile phones can be used
to encourage and commit hate crimes based on race, gender, religion and sexual
orientation.
What
are “vulnerable individuals”? They are any group of people, as Moonbattery reports, that qualifies
as a “protected” group, or a politically favored one, like bald eagles
or snail darters or Joshua trees. Or Muslims. The Internet is a wonderful
thing, concedes Jeffries. But it should be controlled so that wildfires of
violence are not lit by speech that targets those groups. “Hate
speech,” after all, can incite “hate crimes,” or even be treated
as a “hate crime” itself. “Hate speech,” you see, has the
same metaphysical properties as real bullets, bricks, and bombs. Words can
wound, injure, or maim, or cause feelings of inadequacy and a theft of
self-esteem. “Irresponsible” speech poses the same danger as arson.
Doubtless,
that “comprehensive analysis” of what is said or shown on the Internet
will cover everything from the Duck Dynasty to lascivious asides on “Two
and a Half Men.”
Representative
Jeffries will help the committee to decide which “hate crimes” are
sparked by which kinds of “hate speech” against the race, gender,
religion and sexual orientations of their collective choice. If the bill
passes, it will be called the Hate
Crime Reporting Act of 2014
. Read it here and weep. Or fight it.
What
is outside the “zone of First Amendment protection”? It used to be simple-to-grasp
concepts like slander and libel. However, the “zone” has grown with
the appetite of The Blob, while the First Amendment has been whittled away to a
pathetic shadow of its once formidable self. Now the “zone” can include
anything the government wishes to be in it, because the immeasurable feelings
of the potentially offended trump individual rights and freedom of speech.
Caveat: The next time you hear a
Congressman propose that a “problem” be studied in order to find a
solution, know that he hasn’t your freedom in mind and that the solution will
likely be a further tightening of the noose around your neck, your wallet, and
your future.

Previous

Postscript to “Lawrence of Arabia”

Next

Censorship by “Example”

2 Comments

  1. Joe

    Ed, you're so right it makes me want to throw up. Great column as usual.
    Cheers,
    Joe

  2. Edward Cline

    Did I forget what else the government regulates? Such as guns, light bulbs, retirement plans, stock trading, etc.? If I listed everything the government regulates, this column would have been the length of the Affordable Care Act.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén