NY Eyes Vast Expansion of ‘Hate Speech’ Restrictions

ᐈ Debate cartoon stock images, Royalty Free debate illustrations | download  on Depositphotos®

Watch what you say in that debate!

Somehow the watchword for today is “allow”–as in, what will government “allow” us to say, do, or think?

The New York legislature is trying to pass a law that would punish any person or group that “indirectly”–what?–allows “hate speech” (https://www.thecollegefix.com/new-york-bill-would-block-funding-for-student-groups-that-indirectly-allow-hate-speech/). So, for instance, the host of a debate would be criminally liable for any “hate speech” uttered by one side or the other during the debate.

On the griddle would be anyone who “directly or indirectly promotes, encourages, or permits hate speech.” The New York Senate has passed this monstrosity for three years in a row, but it has yet to get past the Assembly. Meanwhile the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled similar capers unconstitutional.

Two little quibbles:

As usual, “hate speech” is not defined… so it could turn out to be virtually anything. The Senate has been concerned with anti-Israel speech spoken by pro-Palestinian groups. Uh-huh–but the wording of the proposed law can brand anything as hate speech. What will we be allowed to say? That can change from day to day, depending on who got up on the wrong side of the bed.

And then there’s that bit about “permitting” hate speech. If it’s not defined, who can avoid “permitting” it? Now we are all responsible for whatever anybody else says?

Is it just me, or is government at every level getting more and more oppressive?

6 comments on “NY Eyes Vast Expansion of ‘Hate Speech’ Restrictions

  1. The tyranny lies in the ambiguity itself. When terms elude definition, the people in power can make the words mean anything they please. And if you try to object, they merely define your objection as a form of hate speech or incitement, or whatever charge they need to bring against you.

    Lavrenti Beria famously said, “Show me the man and I’ll find the crime.” Our new tyrants do the same.

  2. You CANNOT LEGALLY make laws that proscribe the written or spoken word. The First Amendment (while it remains) prevents that. The very idea that it would even be broached as a possibility shows how far we have gone down the path of tyranny.

    1. Like the article says, the Supreme Court has already said you can’t do this. But Democrats always think they can, and get away with it often enough.

  3. Our Rino Governor is pushing for a Hate bill because we are of only two or three states that do not have one. Well, Gov. Hutchinson, we don’t won’t one!! I think most of what comes our of Joe Biden’s mouth is hate speech against America.

    1. Don’t you want government to make basic human emotions against the law? And why should they bother to define “hate”? Much more fun for them, when anyone can be smacked down for “hate.”

      We are governed by perverted idiots who don’t deserve to govern anyone.

Leave a Reply