Broken Not Crushed life as a statement, not an apology

In my last post, I defended hate speech. I realize now that I skipped a step; without a good working definition, any further discussion is fruitless. So here goes…

A commenter on my last post defined it like this:

Hate speech is intended to incite violence…

Good. That gives us a starting point. From here we have 3 questions to answer:

1. Is that an adequate definition?
2. Should that type of speech be legislated against?
3. Is that what people mean when they say “Glenn Beck engages in hate speech”?

First – no. It’s not an adequate definition.

President Obama “incited violence” against AIG execs earlier this year by loudly condemning their bonuses. AIG execs received death threats and legitimately feared for their lives. But no one accused Obama of hate speech. (In fact, the threats were barely a blip on the media’s radar screen, because the execs were such awful people.)

Generals routinely “incite” their soldiers to violence. George Washington did. Harry Truman did. (Have you seen the pics I posted on Facebook of WWII posters?) Yet most of us would not label that “hate speech”.

Some of our heroes incited people to violence, both intentionally (Paul Revere: “To arms! The British are coming!”) and unintentionally (Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, Jesus). If my views are “uncivil” (as many saw Ms. Parks, Dr. King, etc.), and people react violently to them, was it “hate speech”? We would say, “Certainly not!”

No, I think that definition is far too broad and nebulous. Maybe a better one is “hate speech incites violence against innocent individuals based on their beliefs”. But who decides who is “innocent”? Was the abortion doctor gunned down in Kansas innocent? What about the abortion protester gunned down in September? Were abortion proponents/opponents guilty of hate speech in those incidents?

And since beliefs and ideas have consequences, when do “beliefs” become “actions”? Was Bonhoeffer guilty of “hate speech” for plotting with others to assassinate Hitler?

It’s a little tough to pin down a definition, but I think what is meant is, “If you say, ‘Kill the f*g!!’, or ‘Kill the n*gger!’, then THAT’s hate speech.” Kind of like obscenity…hard to define, but you know it when you see it. But if you can’t define it, how can you discuss whether it should be legislated or not? Doesn’t legislation require definitions?

What exactly does legislation against hate speech accomplish? If I’ve resolved to commit murder, because I hate someone, will a law against my speech make a difference?

Maybe that’s a weak argument. Perhaps hate speech statutes are designed to keep me (a hater) from stirring others up and inciting them to violence.

And maybe there IS a benefit to that. But isn’t violence already against the law? Is a crime more heinous because it was committed out of hatred, or because someone stirred up someone else to hate? Is Matthew Shepard more wronged because it was a hate crime? Would the crime have been less horrible if committed for a different motivation? I don’t think so.

But those statutes can be useful in silencing opposition. Canadian pastors have been prohibited from teaching the idea that homosexuality is wrong, based on their understanding of Scripture, because they are using “hate speech”. Mind you, they are not stirring up a lynch mob to kill homosexuals; they are simply expounding their interpretation of their holy text.

And this is where it’s scary to me, because if you give one group the power to silence another, you give up the bedrock of our freedoms and open the door to tyranny.

“Oh, you’re just being reactionary, Christian. That won’t happen!”

Really? In a nation where private citizens are sued for reporting suspicious behavior on an aircraft because it was “hate”? In a nation where pastors (Jeremiah Wright) and imams (insert favorite radical mosque here) can rant against America, but Christian clubs on college and high school campuses are silenced? People have different definitions of hate, and the people with power can define which “hate” is illegal or illegitimate. That is scary to me.

Remember who was blamed for the OKC bombing? That’s right, talk radio. Rush, in particular. Not the man who rented the truck and filled it with explosives and blew up a bunch of people. He was merely the instrument, not responsible for his actions. That’s where hate speech laws lead us: “I’m not ultimately responsible for my choices, because someone else led me astray.” That’s not what I teach my children, and it’s not the country I want to live in.

There is a reason that our very first amendment in our Bill of Rights is freedom of speech.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

There is zero wiggle room there for “hate speech” laws. The Founders understood that people should be responsible for their actions, that violence can be legislated against, but that speech is sacred and worthy of protection, via violence (Second Amendment) if necessary. Or, as I learned in preschool, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” I know that’s not entirely true…words can hurt my feelings. But you shouldn’t legislate against hurt feelings.

So on to the third point: is this kind of speech, the “inciting to violence”, what Glenn Beck is doing? Is it what Fox News does?

Hell no.

This kind of moral confusion, of blurring the definitions to fit an agenda, is what drives me nuts about the left. “Glenn Beck spouts hate speech!!”

Really? Show me. Where has he told someone to commit violence against someone else? Nowhere. The “hate speech” canard, like the “race card” is nothing more than a convenient ploy to silence your opponent when 1) he’s making fun of you, 2) calling you on your lies, or 3) when you can’t answer his arguments.

Does Glenn Beck make fun of people? Absolutely. Does he get angry? You bet. Does he call names? Affirmative. Does he hate Obama? I don’t know and I don’t care. He can hate whoever he wants. It’s a free country. And he can say whatever he wants. It’s a free country.

Until he gives out the address of someone, and tells people to go threaten that person, and stirs them into a lynch mob…oh, wait, that’s already happened. The Obama administration did that against the AIG execs.

Oops.