[Industrialblog,
April 1, 2004]
Hate Speech Laws
The IB Committee on Truth and "Truth" has decided to begin a campaign to enjoin legislators to write new, more rigorous hate-speech laws. The problem with such laws until now is they are content neutral.
The problem is the fact that the debate is long since over that there is such a thing as "content-neutral". Post-structuralist criticism instructs us that there is no such thing as a non-political act. Attempts to be neutral do nothing more than encourage and enforce the status quo; therefore, content-neutral hate speech laws are not merely conservative, they are positively, aggressively reactionary.
Indeed, most people prosecuted under hate-crimes laws have turned out to be members of the very oppressed groups the laws were designed to protect. Content-neutral means the form is conservative, thus the content is conservative. This is so painfully obvious after 50 years of post-structuralist thought, and the evidence of the arrests under the hate crimes laws, that it is simply beyond arguing. Members of oppressor groups will simply use any level-playing to tip the scales their way.
Thus, the IB Committee on Truth and "Truth" demands new hate-speech laws to counteract the reactionary aggression of the First Amendment to the Constitution and current, content-neutral hate speech laws. These laws must get not only the thumbs, but the hands, feet and buttocks of the oppressors off the scales of justice.
This means foremost recognizing the condition of the speaker, and the circumstances of the speech, before a hate speech prosecution may commence. To put it in terms even an oppressor can understand, members of non-privileged groups cannot hate by definition, they can only react to others' hatred of them. Thus, they are incapable of hate crimes and incapable of hate speech. So prosecution of hate speech and hate crimes will be limited to privileged groups only.
We recommend the following to be designated hate speech:
1. Any outward expression, including words, sounds, gestures, facial expressions and the like, that indicates hate, fear, loathing, derision, disapproval of the existence or behavior of members of repressed groups.
2. Opposition to, or collaboration with or sympathy for any opposition to, any political agenda designed to correct the legacy of oppression in the past or eliminate oppression in the present.
3. Timidity, passivity or indifference in the presence of injustice, whether caused by oppressive attitudes toward race, sex, addiction, HIV status, sexual orientation, and previous history of felonies, depression or joblessness. No longer will oppressors be permitted to just "look the other way" and pretend they don't see the plain injustice of their acts, the acts of their neighbors, and the acts of their kind.
4. Superstition or worship of any deity who/that signifies oppression, or encourages any oppression of the kind listed in the first three demands. People will no longer be permitted to hide behind texts of ancient ethnic hatred to justify their hate. Nor will they be permitted to make gods who look like they do.
The problem is the fact that the debate is long since over that there is such a thing as "content-neutral". Post-structuralist criticism instructs us that there is no such thing as a non-political act. Attempts to be neutral do nothing more than encourage and enforce the status quo; therefore, content-neutral hate speech laws are not merely conservative, they are positively, aggressively reactionary.
Indeed, most people prosecuted under hate-crimes laws have turned out to be members of the very oppressed groups the laws were designed to protect. Content-neutral means the form is conservative, thus the content is conservative. This is so painfully obvious after 50 years of post-structuralist thought, and the evidence of the arrests under the hate crimes laws, that it is simply beyond arguing. Members of oppressor groups will simply use any level-playing to tip the scales their way.
Thus, the IB Committee on Truth and "Truth" demands new hate-speech laws to counteract the reactionary aggression of the First Amendment to the Constitution and current, content-neutral hate speech laws. These laws must get not only the thumbs, but the hands, feet and buttocks of the oppressors off the scales of justice.
This means foremost recognizing the condition of the speaker, and the circumstances of the speech, before a hate speech prosecution may commence. To put it in terms even an oppressor can understand, members of non-privileged groups cannot hate by definition, they can only react to others' hatred of them. Thus, they are incapable of hate crimes and incapable of hate speech. So prosecution of hate speech and hate crimes will be limited to privileged groups only.
We recommend the following to be designated hate speech:
1. Any outward expression, including words, sounds, gestures, facial expressions and the like, that indicates hate, fear, loathing, derision, disapproval of the existence or behavior of members of repressed groups.
2. Opposition to, or collaboration with or sympathy for any opposition to, any political agenda designed to correct the legacy of oppression in the past or eliminate oppression in the present.
3. Timidity, passivity or indifference in the presence of injustice, whether caused by oppressive attitudes toward race, sex, addiction, HIV status, sexual orientation, and previous history of felonies, depression or joblessness. No longer will oppressors be permitted to just "look the other way" and pretend they don't see the plain injustice of their acts, the acts of their neighbors, and the acts of their kind.
4. Superstition or worship of any deity who/that signifies oppression, or encourages any oppression of the kind listed in the first three demands. People will no longer be permitted to hide behind texts of ancient ethnic hatred to justify their hate. Nor will they be permitted to make gods who look like they do.
This has got to be an April Fool's joke...nice one :)
What I do not understand is why you do not require that we all register as members of the appropriate group so that we can more clearly identify who is and is not capable of hate speech.
I'd join you in this effort and proudly wear my grey ribbon, but I'm content to be neutral. Per Rodney King: can't we all just get along? Time to get along (and gone).
Do you use the british spelling of grey?
Ewwwww.