What do you think?

Is criticism of radical Islam hate speech? 

As it prepares to work with a ‘Trust and Safety Council’ that critics allege will police content, Twitter’s own rules characterize criticism of religion as “hate speech”.

Earlier this week, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey announced the formation of the council under the Orwellian justification that “freedom of expression….starts with safety.”

Despite claiming the council comprises a “diversity of voices,” it does not include a single organization dedicated to defending free speech.

The Council does include Feminist Frequency’s Anita Sarkeesian, who gave a speech in front of a UN panel last year during which she characterized criticism of feminism as hate speech, arguing that calling a feminist a “liar” is a form of “harassment”.

However, Twitter’s own rules already state that “advocacy” against protected groups will not be tolerated on the social media platform.

Twitter’s policy on “Hate content, sensitive topics, and violence” includes “advocacy” against someone’s “religion” in the same context as “hate speech,” meaning that legitimate criticism of the religion of Islam could be censored.

The policy is primarily aimed at ad content, but states that the same rules apply to, “tweets, trends and accounts.”

Given that Twitter’s second biggest shareholder is none other than Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, concerns are growing that negative commentary about Islam could be stifled. In Saudi Arabia, draconian blasphemy laws mandate torture and execution for critics of Sunni Islam.

Twitter is a private company and it can censor who it likes, but in taking steps to silence conservatives simply to curry favor with perpetually outraged social justice warriors, the social media giant is taking a firm stance against free speech.

The company’s lurch towards censorship has also coincided with a collapse in its stock price, with Twitter losing half of its value in the last three months. For the first time ever, Twitter also lost active users in the last quarter, dropping from 305 million to 303 million.

Censorship is not popular, but Twitter appears to have taken a course which could eventually lead to its own implosion.

Reference: http://www.teaparty.org/twitter-characterizes-criticism-islam-hate-...

Views: 1144

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Anyone who doesn't assimilate into society, learning the language, and not trying to replace the Constitution is fine -BUT my opinion is free speech.

HOWEVER - - another problem is a Justice Department that functions as a rear guard for political corruption - such as Obama's Whitehouse and HR Clinton.  If we don't have a DOJ impartial - the third leg of our Republic is doomed.    

I think this guy explains it well...

Know Your Constitution (5): Free Speech and Hate Speech

This is the fifth in a series of posts, intended for a general audience, discussing the Constitution.   Previous posts introduced the Constitution, rebutted some commonly held myths about the Constitution andaddressed the Equal Protection Clause.

Today’s post deals with hate speech and that part of the First Amendment that declares: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”.

I want to emphasize three important take-away points at the outset. One is that the First Amendment protects us from the government; it does not apply to relations between private persons. Second, the First Amendment, like all individual rights in the Constitution, is not absolute. And last, freedom of speech has costs.

What is freedom of speech anyway? There is the joke told years ago by the Russian comedian Yacov Smirnoff. He was confronted by an American bragging about freedom of speech. Smirnoff retorted: “Big deal! We also have freedom of speech in Russia. What we don’t have is freedom after speech.”

One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech, including but not limited to the anti-Semitic kind. Hate speech and anti-Semitism are major concerns in Europe and the Middle East and remain a nagging concern in the US as well. Hate speech can be defined as speech directed at a historically oppressed religious or racial minority with the intent to insult and demean. Hate speech undermines social attitudes and beliefs, it isolates its targets and it tends to silence them because they are often stunned and unable to respond. Hate speech also traumatizes (think of the effect it had on survivors and other Jews when the Nazis threatened to march in Skokie). We all know some of the hateful slurs that are too often directed against Jews, blacks, Latinos and Italians in this country.

What does the First Amendment, through interpretations by the Supreme Court, have to say about hate speech? The short answer is that the First Amendment prohibits government from regulating such speech altogether. This is a very different approach from that of countries in Western Europe that often prohibit such speech, including denials of the Holocaust.

But why should that be? After all, despite the children’s saying about sticks and stones, we know that words can in fact hurt and lead to terrible acts. Words have power.  Words have costs.

One answer is that the First Amendment creates a marketplace of ideas in which everyone can participate. Everyone can try to sell his or her ideas to the marketplace and the buyers in the marketplace eventually decide which ideas have value and which do not, which ideas are truthful and which are not. We are all sellers and buyers in this marketplace.

What is the government’s role in this marketplace of ideas? Basically, the government must stay neutral; it must keep its hands off of the marketplace. The Enlightenment assumption—the assumption of the Framers of the Constitution—that underlies the marketplace of ideas is that people are ultimately rational, they may be persuaded by reason, even though emotions and passions play a major rule in political decision-making.

What kinds of ideas are out there in the marketplace of ideas? Political ideas, artistic ideas, scientific ideas, social ideas of all kinds, whether smart, crazy, far-out, brilliant, dangerous.

However, despite what I’ve just said, there are some communications that are not allowed in the marketplace of ideas. Obscene speech, for one, carefully defined by the Supreme Court, is excluded from the marketplace of ideas. Another kind of communication, child pornography, is also not allowed because its production involves child abuse. The reasons for these exceptions include history and the belief that these kinds of communications have little or no redeeming social value.

So now you’re thinking the following: if there are some exceptions under the First Amendment and its marketplace of ideas, why not also include hate speech as an exception? After all, hate speech surely has little or no redeeming social value. It insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Why should government not be allowed to prohibit it?

The Supreme Court’s answer to this particular question is that even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?

Finally, and perhaps most important, think about how the marketplace of ideas functions: even if hateful ideas are communicated, the theory (hope?) is that counter-speech will emerge to rebut it and to fight it. In other words, more speech rather than less is the remedy.

http://nahmodlaw.com/2013/12/04/know-your-constitution-5-free-speec...

@Marilyn Calkins,

That is a good piece and I will check out the link.  Thanks for sharing.

"Is criticism of radical islam hate speech"?  The fact that the question is asked makes me angry.  Of course, criticism of radical islam is NOT hate speech.  This whole so-called discussion by liberals and muslims is part of the plan to get people to sympathize with islamists and their stupid beliefs.  Does anyone know any more what the meaning of the word "freedom" is?  Are we just going to sit on our rear ends and let these evil people take away our freedoms without a whimper?  Not me.

These people are not here to further themselves but to force Islam on all.  They hate us - so for us to tolerate is insane.  They are savages and will not adhere to anything American.  Put here for one reason  to cast a vote.

Is criticism of radical Islam hate speech? Is criticism of radical Islam hate speech? 

Is it hate speech? Who cares? All speech is protected.

I won't do twitter then... It will have to just be a leftist echo chamber

Steve maybe we can post this. In this way members can call their Senators and voice their opposition or support for this bill

Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Provide Free Lawyers to Illegals

ed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats have introduced legislation to provide lawyers paid for by the government to illegal immigrant children and mothers to help them navigate the complex legal system since crossing the U.S. border from Central America in recent years.

"Deportation means death for some of these people," the Nevada senator told The Washington Times after the bill was introduced on Thursday. "Given the life-and-death consequences of deportation to this region, we must ensure that we are not putting asylum-seeking women and children in harm’s way.

that these desperate women and children have a lawyer."

Democrats included the lawyers with other protections proposed for illegals, among them allowing aliens to delay deportation proceedings until they gain access to their full government file, the Times reports.

Illegals can hire their own attorneys, but the government does not pay for them.

In the past two and a half years, nearly 300,000 illegal immigrant families and children have crossed the U.S. border with Mexico alone, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

The legislation is not likely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress, the Times reports.

notice that the Times says it;s unlikely  to pass congress so does that mean .you don't have to call your Senators to opposed it? Sounds like the Times is trying to control the narrative here. Anyway call your Senators if you like of course ...just because there are so called republicans in the majority does not mean Reid won't get what he wants..Obama gets what he wants.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/harry-reid-senate-democrats-bill/2...
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/harry-reid-senate-democrats-bill/2...
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

“As the essential principle of his [Muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”

President John Quincy Adams

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

Yikes !!! Ocasio-Cortez: We Need A ‘Multigendered, Multigeographic’ United States

The United States of America needs to be “multigendered” and “multigeographic,” according to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who endorsed fellow socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at the “Bernie’s Back Rally” in New York on Saturday.

The freshman lawmaker and “Squad” member officially endorsed Sanders during a rally in Queensbridge Park in Long Island City, New York, on Saturday and called for more diversity in the U.S., arguing that it should not only be “multiracial” and “multigenerational” but “multigeographic” and “multigendered.”

“We need a United States that really, truly, and authentically is operated, owned, and decided by working – and all – people in the United States of America,” Ocasio-Cortez said to applause.

“That is what it – it is multiracial, multigendered, multigenerational, and multigeographic,” she said, failing to elaborate on what that specifically looks like.

“We have to come together, not ignoring our differences but listening to them, prioritizing them, understanding injustice,” she continued.

The socialist lawmaker also implied that rampant racism is still alive and well in the U.S., telling the crowd that it is essential to understand “that we operate in a context where slavery evolved into Jim Crow, evolved into mass incarceration, [and] evolved into the realities we have today.”

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service