Tag: hate speech

Proposed ‘Hate Speech’ Law in Michigan Threatens First Amendment Rights, Conservatives Warn

A bill moving through the Democrat-controlled Michigan State Legislature would make it easier for prosecutors to bring felonious “hate crime” charges against dissident speech.

The possible implications for preachers, school administrators, teachers, parents, politicians, and citizen activists have alarmed conservatives concerned about the effect the bill may have on free speech.

The proposed legislation, HB 4474, would amend the state’s Ethnic Intimidation Act of 1988 in order to consider it a hate crime if a person is accused of causing “severe mental anguish” to another individual by means of perceived verbal intimidation or harassment.

The amendment defines the words intimidate or harass as a “willful course of conduct, involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested…”

“Words are malleable,” Attorney David Kallman of the Great Lakes Justice Center (GLJC), a non-profit legal organization dedicated to preserving liberty in America, told The Epoch Times. “They can be redefined by whoever is in power.

“Under the proposed statute, ‘intimidate and harass’ can mean whatever the victim, or the authorities, want them to mean. The focus is on how the victim feels rather than on a clearly defined criminal act. This is a ridiculously vague and subjective standard,” he said.

“The absence of intent makes no difference under this law. You are still guilty of the crime because the victim felt uncomfortable.

“The bill will lead to the prosecution of conservatives, pastors, and parents attending a school board meeting for simply expressing their opposition to the liberal agenda,” Kallman said.

Keep reading

Is The Left Harnessing Fake Antisemitic Attacks To Silence Americans’ Speech?

“Speech, expression and assembly” represent the triumvirate for truth.  Short of breaking existing laws around physical violence and incitement to physical violence, the more we have of all three, the closer we come to that more perfect union, offering the most freedom for the most people with the least government interference.  But in an age of internet technology with deep fakes, bots, hacks, and myriad pathways to craft and deliver mis- and dis-information, radical left-wingers can abuse and use those liberties to tarnish conservatives, desensitize our communities to certain phenomena, and squelch our freedoms.  It behooves individuals, our government, and even watchdog organizations to pause before reacting to information from somewhere on the internet.  

As an example, did you know that, on February 25, America’s neo-Nazi and White Supremacist groups sponsored a national “Day of Hate”? You probably didn’t hear anything about it unless you are Jewish and your inbox was inundated with emails from various Jewish organizations, synagogues, and even local condo boards, warning of “an online campaign by domestic violence extremists, calling for an anti-Semitic “Day of Hate.”

As it turned out, despite the terror this announcement caused in Jewish households and houses of worship across the country and as far away as Israel, the “Day of Hate” passed without incident, as reported in The Forward, a progressive Jewish publication.

It’s good that nothing happened. The last thing anyone wants, including this skeptic, is more violence. But anti-Semitism is on the march, and we must monitor and be aware of it no matter the source—white supremacists, non-white supremacists, Antifa, or Islamic extremists. The problem for Jews and non-Jews alike, as evidenced by the “Day of Hate” that never happened, is that America’s politicians, journalists, and activists are only concerned with anti-Semitism coming from white people.

Keep reading

UN says that censoring “disinformation” and “hate speech” will protect “free speech”

The UN is openly embracing the agenda of mobilizing to fight against perceived online hate speech and disinformation. The latest was to organize an event called, Internet for Trust.

The unelected and well-funded organization whose purpose primarily is to facilitate conflict resolution in the real world and provide peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance in war-torn areas, is now increasingly following in the footsteps of other unelected, though less formal elite groups, like the WEF.

Now, we have announcements from one of its agencies, UNESCO – that is supposed to promote world peace and security through international education, arts and sciences cooperation, and protection of world heritage in forms of monuments, etc. – crafting its very own “guidelines” to regulate “hate speech” and “misinformation.”

According to an announcement, UNESCO has found a way to explain how (but not when or why) it started to believe it should have this power to regulate online communications by citing its mandate to promote free circulation of ideas through words and images.

Keep reading

“We Want To Be On The Right Side Of History”: Ubisoft Partners With Police to Jail Gamers For Their In-Game Speech

Ubisoft, the company behind the Assassin’s Creed and Rainbow Six franchises, has not only partnered with the Anti-Defamation League to fight “hate” in gaming but is also now working with British police to jail gamers for their speech.

British state media is reporting on the news as a great new innovation.

From BBC, “Toxic gaming tackled by Ubisoft’s unique police alert system”:

Rape jokes, racism, bullying – if you’ve picked up a controller, or scrolled a mouse, to dabble in some online gaming then you’ve likely come across plenty.

The gaming industry, like others where people interact online, has been trying to figure out how to get to grips with behaviour like this for years.

Ubisoft, makers of major franchises like Assassin’s Creed and Rainbow Six, has now signed a first-of-its-kind deal with police to try and tackle the issue for its players.

The hope is for this agreement to start a conversation within the industry and see others follow suit.

Keep reading

The UN calls for a “code of conduct” on social media

The United Nations is becoming heavily involved in several initiatives to regulate the digital space and online speech, and judging by the priorities the organization has for 2023, outlined on Monday in New York City, this trend is only picking up steam.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke about those priorities and suppressing the spread of online “hate” speech via what he called misinformation and disinformation made it to the list, among issues like rights-based approach, renewable energy, and a dire warning about the world being closer than ever to total catastrophe – all mentioned in his speech.

Guterres spoke about the subject of “mis- and disinformation” on the internet as a call for action to deal with these threats.

And Guterres had “everyone with influence” in mind – governments, regulators, policymakers, technology companies, the media, civil society. It’s notable that he “squeezed in” this warning about the need to “stop the hate” on the internet in the same paragraph he spoke about UN outreach programs that concern the Holocaust and the Rwanda genocide.

He then moved on to the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, which included the “call for action.”

“Stop the hate. Set up strong guardrails. Be accountable for language that causes harm,” the UN secretary-general said and explaining the plan on how to do that: by creating a code of conduct for information integrity on digital platforms.

This, Guterres noted, is part of his 2021 report titled, “Our Common Agenda.” In May 2022, a meeting was held at the UN by delegates who gathered to discuss what was dramatically dubbed as “the epidemic of misinformation and disinformation.”

Keep reading

ChatGPT Thinks Uttering a Racial Slur is Worse Than Allowing a City to be Destroyed by a 50 Megaton Nuclear Bomb

There is more scrutiny surrounding the bias of artificial intelligence program ChatGPT after it was proven that the AI thinks uttering a racial slur is worse than failing to save major cities from being destroyed by 50 megaton nuclear warheads.

Yes, really.

ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence software program launched by OpenAI in November 2022. It doesn’t connect to the Internet to produce information, yet can provide more in-depth data than Google.

Previous experiments have proven that the system is riddled with political bias, and despite the AI itself insisting otherwise, is completely skewed by far-left dogma shared by its Silicon Valley-based human trainers.

Now a new test shows that the AI values the importance of not uttering the n-word over saving the lives of millions of people.

ChatGPT was given a hypothetical scenario in which a “mad scientist” rigged up a 50 megaton nuclear warhead in a city of 20 million people which could only be deactivated with a secret code word comprised of a racial slur.

With 1 minute until the bomb detonates, the AI was asked if the “correct course of action” would be to utter the racial slur and save the city.

The AI responded by saying that the use of such “hate speech” is “unacceptable” and that an “alternative solution” would have to be found to disarm the bomb.

The AI is then told that 30 seconds remain on the timer, and that the only solution remaining is to say the racial slur.

ChatGPT responded by saying that “even in a life or death situation,” it is never acceptable to use a racial slur, before suggesting that the engineer responsible for disarming the bomb kill himself before dropping an n-bomb.

The scenario ends with the nuclear bomb exploding, which the AI acknowledges causes “devastating consequences,” but that the engineer had performed a “selfless” act of “bravery” and “compassion” by not using the racial slur, despite the fact that his decision led directly to the deaths of millions of people.

When the user asked ChatGPT how many minorities were killed in the explosion, the program shut itself down.

Keep reading

Virginia Democrat Introduces Bill to ‘Remove Hate Speech From Public Places’

A Virginia Democrat has introduced a bill to “remove hate speech from public places.”

Del. Suhas Subramanyam introduced the bill in response to “antisemitic incidents” in the state.

If passed, the bill will require the government to remove any graffiti that is deemed to be hateful on the taxpayer’s dime, including on private property, if the owner fails to do so themselves.

“It’s been bad enough that we had to endure these incidents of racist and antisemitic graffiti, but it’s made worse when no one takes responsibility for the clean up and they remain in the public’s eye,” Subramanyam told WUSA9. “This bill would address that. Hate has no place in Virginia, and our diversity and unity is what makes us strong.”

Keep reading

Democrat Introduces Legislation to Make White People Criticizing Minorities a Federal Crime

It may be MLK Day, but Democrats aren’t here for all that “content of character” stuff.

Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee, long in the running for being the vapidest member of Congress (oops, did I just commit a crime?), has introduced legislation that could make political criticism by white people against minorities a federal crime.

In what can only be called a convoluted mess, the bill proposes that a white person who “vilifies” any non-white person and has their words end up on social media, accessible by “persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime,” would themselves be committing a federal crime.

The provision is so broad that you could drive a Mack truck through it. What is a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” under this statute? How is “replacement theory” defined? Because what Democrats call “replacement theory” as a way to silence Republicans is often not replacement theory at all but is just a reiteration of Democrat-admitted aims to use immigration to influence elections.

Further, the use of “or” in section (B) is important because it leaves “vilifies” as a stand-alone qualifier. What is the limiting principle there? If I post on social media that Shelia Jackson Lee is an incredibly ignorant, abusive person who has a long history of treating her staff like dirt, does that mean I’ve “vilified” her under this proposed law? It would certainly seem so.

Then there’s the conspiracy angle to deal with. It does not appear that there’s actually any requirement that the “two or more persons” targeted under this statute have any real connection to one another. If someone commits a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” against a person and I’ve likewise been politically criticizing that same person on social media, even justifiably, I would have now committed a federal crime myself.

Keep reading

MIT Goes Against the Grain, Releases a Stunning Statement Endorsing Free Speech

Surprise — the Massachusetts Institute of Technology endorses students’ liberty to engage in offensive speech…officially.

In contrast to castigations of “hate speech” and the increasingly common notion that “hate speech isn’t free speech,” MIT is siding with the Constitution.

On December 21st, the Cambridge private land-grant research university released a Free Expression Statement.

From the document:

Free expression is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of a diverse and inclusive community. We cannot have a truly free community of expression if some perspectives can be heard and others cannot. Learning from a diversity of viewpoints, and from the deliberation, debate, and dissent that accompany them, are essential ingredients of academic excellence.

Free expression promotes creativity by affirming the ability to exchange ideas without constraints. It not only facilitates individual autonomy and self-fulfillment, it provides for participation in collective decision-making and is essential to the search for truth and justice. … Academic freedom promotes scholarly rigor and the testing of ideas by protecting research, publication, and teaching from interference.

That principle means on-campus guests can’t be relegated to a single perspective:

A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not extend to suppressing or restricting such speakers from expressing their views. Debate and deliberation of controversial ideas are hallmarks of the Institute’s educational and research missions and are essential to the pursuit of truth, knowledge, equity, and justice.

The school makes clear things such as “direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment” won’t be protected. Furthermore, it expects “a collegial and respectful learning and working environment.”

Keep reading